

v. 



jX 



i-iDnMt-iY ui- UUNUHbSS 

lilllli 1 1 llliil i j 

017 185 142 7 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5, Buffered 



SPEECH 



F 880 
.B83 
Copy 1 



OF 



. s: breese, 



TATO 



THE OREGON QUESTION. 



■y 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, MONDAY, MARCH 2, 1846. 






WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF BLAIR AND RIVES. 

1846. 



''So 3 







A 






THE OREGON QUESTION. 



The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the 
Special Order, being the joint resolution of the 
Committee on Foreign Relations, proposing to 
give notice to Great Britain of the desire of the 
Government of the United States to annul and 
abrogate the treaty for tire joint occupancy of 
the Oregon territory, and the resolutions of 
Messrs. Hannegan, Calhoun, and Critten- 
den, relating to the same subject. 

Mr. BREESE, of Illinois, addressed the Senate 
as follows: 

Mr. President: It is not to be expected that 
any Senator rising in the present stage of this 
debate, can throw much additional light on the 
important question before us. It has been so 
•ilaborately discussed, not only in these Halls, but 
by the public press throughout the country, that 
it is now scarcely possible to invest it with a 
new interest, or urge topics with which the Senate 
and the country are not already familiar. It had 
excited, and justly too, throughout every part of 
tjur widely-extended Union, the most earnest at- 
tention of the w^hole American people. Probably, 
no question since we had become a nation, had 
aroused so strong an interest as this has, and none, 
probably, has been more ably debated. The na- 
tion awaits with intense anxiety the decision of 
Congress, and the eyes of all are now turned to the 
action of the Senate. The Executive has done what 
belonged to him in the matter; and the Plouse of 
Representatives has performed its duty. It now 
only remains for the Senate to perform its duty, by 
consummating the action of both. 

It is, Mr. President, in view of the great interest 
the State from which I come has in this question, 
and in obedience to an overruling sense of duty 
to it, that I am now prompted to address the Sen- 
ate. I did not know, sir, until this morning, that 
the General Assembly of my State had, at its last 
session, adopted the resolutions just presented by 
my colleague, [Mr. Semple,] and read by the Sec- 
retary. I was aware, sir, that two j'ears since. 



similar resolutions had been adopted and present- 
ed here; and two yeai's since, it was my duty and 
my pleasure, here in my place, to respond to them, 
and to express the views I then entertained of the 
subject, and of the obligations resting upon Con- 
gress to carry out the wishes of that State, and 
those of other States who had conveyed here, simi- 
lar expressions of the public will. These resolu- 
tions, sir, read here at this moment, but strengthen 
me in the determination I had formed to vote for 
some resolution to annul and abrogate the conven- 
tions of 1818 and 1827, and to follow it up, by 
pressing such other measures as should place our 
citizens beyond the Rocky mountains under the 
protection of our laws; incorporate the country into 
our Union; protect the emigrant on his way to its 
fertile plains, and pledge to all who seek them, the 
honor and faith of the Government that they shall 
be made secure in their possessions by perfect 
grants of land, at the earliest period within the 
competency of the Government to act, consistent 
with treaty stipulations. And I cannot but hope 
that my conduct in these regards will be approved 
by the State of Illinois, whose will and feelings 
and opinions I take pleasure in reflecting. 

In that State, sir, there is but one opinion; nay, 
sir, in the entire Northwest, so far as I am inform- 
ed, (and I have paid much attention to the manifes- 
tations of the public mind,) there is no difference 
of opinion upon it. I do not think, sir, that any 
party, or any respectable portion of any party, is 
opposed to prompt and immediate action by Con- 
gress, to terminate, what all feci and believe to be an 
inconvenient and injudicious relation betv/een this 
and a foreign country, affecting, as it does, so dis- 
astrously, many important national interests. They 
are not, sir, for " wise and masterly inactivity; ' 
j whatever might have been its virtue in times past, 
I they think the time has arrived for action, prompt 
! and decided; and in this, sir, I concur with them 
I most heartily; and with the favor of the Senate, I 
I will give some reasons, briefly as I may, for their 
. and my opinions. 



1 do not intend, Mr. President, to enter upon a 
discussion of the relative merits of the various 
propositions now on your table, by which the 
first object is sought to be attained. I will not 
contrast or compare them, or attempt to point out 
the difference between them; suffice it to say, that 
my preference is for that form which shall in the 
most direct manner effect the object desired. Nor 
will I discuss the important propositions contained 
in tlie resolutions of the Senator of Indiana, [Mr. 
Han'Xegax,] or the substitute for them presented 
by the Senator of South Carolina, [Mr. Cal- 
houn,] believing, as I do, that it is unnecessary, 
at this time, to express an opinion upon them. 
At present, we have only to do with the naked 
question of the projiriety of giving notice to Great 
Britain of our desire to aniuil and abrogate a con- 
vention, the benefits of which are wholly upon 
the side of Great Britain, and which stands in 
the way of the free and untrammelled action of 
this Government upon an integral part of our na- 
tional domain, to M'hicli many thousands of our 
citizens have pushed their enterprise, but who are 
witliout the efficient protection of this Government 
and its laws. 

Nor do I intend, sir, in the view I shall take 
of this subject, to go into an extended and labor- 
ed discussion of the title of the United States to 
the country west of the Rocky mountains, nor 
dilate upon its beauties and advantages, though 
I by no means believe such a discussion is inap- 
propriate; nor would I desire to restrain Sena- 
tors, on either side, from a full and free expres- 
sion of their opinions upon the question of title. 
It is true, sir, the propriety of the notice at this 
time is the only question before tlie Senate; yet the 
title is necessarily mingled with it, and forms an 
important element in the debate; for if the United 
States have no valid title to the country covered 
by the convention, it may well be contended, a 
notice to terminate it would be impolitic and un- 
wise. Two years ago, sir, when this subject was 
before the Senate, the title was discussed more or 
less, I think, by every speaker; and what is 
worthy of note, not a Senator was then found ex- 
pressing a doubt of the validity of the American 
title. Now, after two years of investigation and 
reflection, I do hear, sir, occasionally, some doubts 
expressed of its validity. I entertain none my- 
self; and if I did,] should solve them for my coun- 
try. Then, sir, objections were urged against 
giving the notice at that time, for the reason that 
we had invited a renewal of negotiations, with a 
view to a final adjustment of the controversy, and 
that a special Envoy, at our instance, had been 
sent here by Great Britain to conduct them on 
her part; and that it would be discourteous at such 
a moment, and under such circumstances, to give 
the notice; and it was further said, that, at that 
time and in the then aspect of affairs, war might 
be the consequence of our action. At the present 
session, we have heard, sir, from the only Senator 
who has spoken to the question on the other side 
of the Chamber, [Mr. J. M. Claytox,] that the 
notice would not lead to war; but, o)i the contrary, 
that it woidd be a preservative of pence; that it is 
a measure -tending to peace, and important to be 
given as a means of jireserving that relation be- 



tween two great and powerful nations; at the 
same time giving it as his opinion that the ques' 
tion of title should be discussed with closed doors — 
thereby implying, there might be some obscurity 
resting upon it, which it would be prudent not to 
expose before the world. 

As I have stated, Mr. President, I do not pro- 
yjose to go at length into the discussion of our 
title. After the very able arguments of the Sena- 
tors of New York [Mr. Dix and Mr. Dickinson] 
upon this branch of the subject, by which the Sen- 
ate and the country were so much edified a few days 
since, for me to attempt to add to their force and 
point would be "wasteful and ridiculous excess." 
I shall not attempt it, sir; and I throw myself upon 
the indulgence of the Senate merely for the pur- 
pose of presenting some principles of public law 
to which they have not adverted, which Great Brit- 
ain herself has established on this continent, hav- 
ing, as I conceive, a direct bearing upon her as- 
sumed claims to the country west of the Rocky 
mountains, and decisive, in my judgment, of the 
case against her. I wish to show, sir, that she is 
estopped by her own voluntary act, on her own 
principles, from setting up any claim whatever to 
any part of the territory of Oregon . Not an estop- 
pel in law, sir, but an estoppel in pais — an act done 
by her, which del«rs her, for all time to come, from 
any territorial right there, unless she can extort 
one from our Government, by a cession of some 
part of the ten-itory to her, with or vvithout an 
equivalent; that without such cession, she can 
have no claim whatever. 

I did not say, sir, as I am reported in the jour- 
nals here to have said, in the few hasty remarks I 
made to the Senate the other day, that I could de- 
monstrate "that we liad a perfect title to the whole 
of Oregon." I would by no means make such a 
pledge; for, however strong my own convictiois 
may be, I min-ht be unable so to present them as to 
convince others; hence, I would not incur the re- 
sponsibility wiiich attaches to such a declaration. 
What I intended to say, sir, was, that T would en- 
deavor to sliov,', on the principles established by 
Great Britain herself, that our title was clear as 
against her, and that she could not dispute it — 
principles M-hich she had pwl forth and maintained 
at the cannon's mouth, before the war of indepen- 
dence — principles M-hirh , if correct then , are apjilica- 
ble now to this territorial dispute, which, with such 
remarkable fatuity, we have so long entertained, 
but which, I trust, is now soon to be terminated. 

It is a matter of well-known history, Mr. Pres- 
ident, that the King of Great Britain granted colo- 
nial charters to Virginia, and to other British-Ameri- 
can colonies, long prior to the conquest of Canada, 
which extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific 
ocean, and covered by their broad and comprehen- 
sive description the whole of the territory west of 
the Rocky mountains, from 34° to Gi"-^ north lati- 
tude. That to Virginia, by James the First, bear.^ 
date May 23, 1G(M); it erects the colony into a body 
corporate and politic, and the grant is thus ex- 
pressed: 

" We do give, grant and confirm, unto the said 
' treasurer and company and their successors^ ail 
' those lands, countries, and territories, situate, ly- 
' ing and being in that part of America called Vir- 



* ginia, from the point of land called Cape or Point 
' Comfort all along; the seacoast to the northward 
'two hundred miles, and from the said point of 

* Cape Comfort all along the seacoast to the south- 
' ward two hvmdred miles, and all that space and 
' circuit of land lyins; from the seacoast of the pre- 

* cinct aforesaid up into the land, throughout from 
'sea to sea,u-cst and northwest, and also all the 
' islands lying within one hundred miles along the 
'coast of both seas of the precinct aforesaid: to 
' have and to hold, possess and enjoy, all and sin- 
' gular the said lands, countries and territories, 

* with all and singular the premises by these pres- 
' ents granted or mentioned to be granted to them, 
' tlieir successors and assigns, forever." 

The first charter of 1606 extended along the sea- 
coast from the 34th to the 41st degree of north lat- 
itude, but only fifty miles inland. The third, da- 
ted in 1612, annexed to Virginia all the islands 
within three hundred leagues of the coast; and al- 
though this charter, of 1609, with the other two, 
were vacated by quo tvarranto in 1624, yet a com- 
mission issued for the Government of the Colony 
of Virginia under the royal seal, without making 
any alterations in the boundaries as established by 
the charter of 1609. 

Grants to Lord Baltimore and to William Penn 
curtailed this colony on the north, but the western 
limit was not restricted. 

B)'- running a line from a point " two hundred 
tniles from Cape Comfort" on the Atlantic coast, 
in a northwest direction, it will be found to pass to 
the east of the Lake of the Woods, and to strike 
the Pacific coast near or at the 62d degree of north 
latitude, and that this northwest line should run 
from that point, and not from the point on the 
coast tv.'O hundred miles south of Cape Comfort; 
■but that the west line should start from this south- 
ern point, is of manifest propriety, for in no other 
way could the limits of the colony extend " from 
sea to sea," and by so marking it, no violence is 
done to the language used, and the object of the 
grant carried out, and the cardinal rule observed, 
" so to construe instruments, if possible, that every 
part may stand." 

This grant was made, sir, by the British King 
as an act of sovereignty and in virtue alone of the 
discovery, under his auspices, of the American 
Atlantic coast one hundred and fourteen years be- 
fore. This charter is evidence, sir, that he claim- 
ed not only the right of preemption of the native 
(•ccupants of the soil, but absolute jurisdiction and 
sovereignty over all the territory covered by it from 
sea to sea, by an antiquated discovery made by his 
subjects, not followed up for more than a century 
by an}' eflfort at settlement whatever, and by conti- 
nuity of territory, there being nothing to break that 
chain. 

History informs us, sir, that Pope Alexander 
VL had, the year after the discovery of America, 
granted the same country to Ferdinand and Isa- 
bella by hi.s memorable bull issued from St. Peters, 
■f Rome, in 1493, as God's vicegerent on earth, 
:o whom all kings were subject, rather, perhaps, 
as within the boundaries jirescribed bv him be- 
tween Spain and Portugal tiian as a grant. The 
right of these two potentates to make the grants, 
ir, will not be inquired into, as it is unnccssary to 



a true understanding of the point I v/ish to make. 
The fact of raakinsj the grant is alone important in 
this discussion. If Great Britain did make them, 
I maintain she parted with all right t6 every part 
of the domain included within the charter, and the 
act is an estoppel m pais, as to any right on her part 
to any portion of this continent between the lines 
of her grants. 

Great Britain, then, assumed to own, by virtue 
of her prior discovery, not only the British settle- 
ments on the coast and rivers, and tlie land imme* 
diately contiguous, or drained by the waters of the 
rivers which flowed through her inhabited places, 
but she insisted, sir, upon excluding France and. 
all other nations from colonizing any jiart of the 
country west of the Alleghany range to the Pa- 
cific, on the scround alone that prior discovery and 
settlement, after the lapse of more than a century, 
of a small part of the Atlantic coast, gave to Great 
Britain a right of sovereignty and soil, by continu- 
ity and contiguity, from ocean to ocean. 

France, we know, sir, made an unsuccessful 
eftbrt to resist, by war, this British principle of 
international law. The parent country called upon 
her American colonies, now the United States of 
America, to join the British forces and sustain this 
great principle of her national policy; and after a 
long and desolating war, in which British and 
American blood and treasure were freely expend- 
ed, victory crowned the arms of the confederates. 
The treaty of peace of the 10th of February, 
176.3, made between Great Britain, Spain, and 
France, ratified this British principle of interna- 
tional law, by implication at least. By the 4th 
article of that treaty, sir, the King of France, as 
the aggressor, and as unfortunate in the field, " re- 
' nounces all pretensions which he h(ts heretofore fonn- 
' ed, or might form, to J^'ova Scotia or ^icadia, in all its 
'• parts, and guaranties the whole of it, and with its 
' dependencies, to the King of Great Britain: more- 
' over, his most Christian Majesty cedes and guar- 
' unties to his said Britannic Majesty, in full right, 
' Canada, with all its dependencies, as well as the 
' Island of Cape Breton, and all the other islands 
' and coasts in the gulf of the riVer St. Lawrence, 
' and in general everything that depends on the said 
' countries, lands, islands, and coasts, with the sov- 
' ereignty, property, possession, and all rights ac- 
' quired by treaty or otherwise." 

France, it is well known , sir, had commenced set- 
tlements at Acadia, and in a dependency of Canada 
northwestof the Ohio, being nov/ the State from 
which I come, and on the Ohio river; and being 
beaten in the field, renounced her right and yield- 
ed all her pretensions to them. She was forced, 
sir, to acknowledge this British doctrine for tlie 
American continent, that prior remote discovery 
and subsequent partial settlement on the Adantic 
and a few of its rivers, afforded a just and suffi- 
cient ground for extension by con'igiiity and con- 
tinuity from that coast to the Pacific. 

The same rule of public law she had applied, 
sir, long previously, to the Dutch in their colony of 
New Netherlands, afterwards colony, now State 
of New York. Great Britain claimed to have first 
discovered tiie Hudson river in 1608 by a Dutch 
navigator in their service, who sold it to the Dutch; 
and although they first settled at its mouth prior 



6 



to the settlement of the Pilgrims at Plymouth, and 
occupied it for half a century, they fell under the 
operation of this British American principle of in- 
ternational law, a)id conquest, justified by Britain 
on prior discovery and continuity, as intervening 
her colonies both northward and southward, finally 
added New York to the British colonies in North 
America, extending from the sea to the great 
lakes. 

Great Britain, sir, maintained this doctrine, of 
right to territory being conferred by discovery, by 
her sword, and compelled all other Powers feebler 
than herself, to submit to its application. Cer- 
tainly, then, sir, we had a clear right, when con- 
tending v.-ith her about title, resting upon similar 
yet stronger grounds, to apply to her, her own 
principles, which we, as colonies, aided her in es- 
tablishing. And it neither comports with justice 
nor propriety, that she should be permitted to 
change her ground the moment those principles 
become inconvenient to herself, and obsli-uct her 
path to territoriid aggrandizement. She must now 
stand up to the principle — " the chalice must be 
returned to her own lips." 

She ap[i]ied this same principle, sir, to the Falk- 
land Islands, on the Atlantic coast of South Amer- 
ica, which were fir.st seen in 1592 by one of her 
navigators; and afterwards, in 1764 possession 
was taken of all of them in the name of George 
the Third, then King, by landing on one of them, 
though no settlement whateverwas made or at- 
tempted. Spain, two years after, sent troops from 
her province of Buenos Ayres to one of these 
islands, took possession of it, settled it, and gave 
it a name. In 1769, a dispute arose between these 
two crowns as to the sovereignty of these islands, 
u-hen this British principle of public law was 
again invoked, and Spain, weak and timid Spain, 
had to submit. 

Indeed, sir, her whole history shows that prior 
discovery, even luiaccompanied by settlement, 
was, for her, a sufiicient ground of title. 

It may be said, sir, that a true exposition of the 
law of nations does not sanction this principle. 
But Great Britain has established it, and the con- 
troversy is v.'ith her, and to her it can be applied 
with peculiar and powerful force. She was en- 
abled to write this law with the point of her sword, 
and to interpolate the code of public law in a 
manner to suit herself. In this matter of interna- 
tional law, sir, the great moral law \\hich should 
govern nations as well as individual man, is not 
unfrequently disregarded. With nations, might 
is too commonly regarded as right, and power com- 
pels obedience to the most odious principles, which, 
from the forced acquiescence of the weak, become 
in time to he regarded as fundamental ])rinciples 
of international law. No nation, sir, has been 
more uniformly successful than Great Britain in 
establisliing tliose principles of international law 
which best comported with her own views of poli- 
cy, and .she has defied all nations, not excepting 
our own, sir, in their assertion and prosecution. 

Apply, Mr. President, this conjoint British and 
American exposition of public law, which I have 
stated, to the Spanish di.scovery, in a national ship, 
fitted out for the purpose, by Perez in 1774, of the 
Pacific coast of Oregon as far north as the north- 1 



west point ofWa-shington Island, as claimed by 
the United States, including also Nootka and Van- 
couver's Island; of Heceta and Quadra in 1775, 
of the mouth of the Columbia river, and of various 
other parts of the coast, as related l)y Humboldt 
in his " New Spain," (vol. 2, pp. 259,' 253;) to the 
fact of an actual Spanish occupation of Nootka 
from 1789 to 1795, when the Spaniards voluntarily 
abandoned it; and that no British setdement has 
since been made there. Apply it to the American 
discovery of and sailing up the principal river by 
Captain Gray in his good ship the Columbia, whose 
name the river bears. Apply it to the prior set- 
tlement by Spain of California and other points of 
the coast of the Pacific, luider the orders of the 
Viceroys of New Spain, with' a steady and un- 
yielding claim of title from 1774, to the whole coast 
from California to a latitude north of 54° 40'. Ap- 
ply it to the explorations of Oregon by Lewis and 
Clarke from the head waters of the Columbia to its 
mouth on tlie line of continuity, and to the Ameri- 
ctm settlements made in 1809 and 1811 — the latter 
being Astoria, at its mouth — and the post on the 
Okanagan, six hundred miles up the river, and 
one on the Spokan, still further advanced, and on 
the Kooskooskce and the Willamette rivers, and 
to the surrender of Astoria to the United States by 
Great Britain in virtue of the first article of the 
treaty of Ghent, and without any qualification or 
reservation whatever; and consider that all thesf 
acts and foundations of title, Spanish and Ameri- 
can, belong to the United State.^, — and we find our 
title perfect to the whole of Oregon upon those 
principles of public law established by Great Brit- 
ain herself on the American continent prior to our 
Revolution in 1776, and which she has ahvays 
urged in her own behalf. 

On England's own doctrine, sir, have we not 
a perfect title to the whole of Oregon ? Have 
we not a perfect right, sir, to apply to her pre- 
tensions there, the test of her own principles? 
If her discovery of the Atlantic coast, and her 
partial settlements at Jamestown and Plymouth, 
entitled her to claim the whole coast and country, 
and to turn the French and the Dutch out of it — do 
not our discoveries, and those of Spain, which now 
belong to us, on the Northwest coast, and her and 
our establishments and possession there; (Spain 
being undeniably the first discoverer, and that 
not remotely;) give us a title equally valid to the 
coast of the Pacific ? If the British principle was 
sound in the one case, why was it not in the other f 
Can this be answered ? Or shall it be permitted her, 
at her own caprice, to change principles she has 
established, without resistance, from a Govern- 
ment and Power equal, if not superior, to her 
own*? 

The views here presented, sir, justify me, I 
think, in the assertion, that from the public law 
in regard to title arising upon discovery, as as- 
serted by England, she is estopped by her own 
act from claiming any part of the Northwest coast 
between 34° and 62° north latitude. It will not 
do to saV) sir, in opposition to th.is conclusion, 
that the limits of the British possessions on this 
continent were confined bj'' the treaty of 1763 to 
the country east of the Mississippi; nor that the 
treaty of peace of 17S3, acknowledging the inde- 



pendence of the American colonies, confined them 
to tliat river as tlicir western limit. This is no 
answer to the argument, based as it is upon the 
previous act of Great Britain herself, and she now 
the opposing claimant; for by the terms of that ac- 
knowledgment, his Britanic Majesty acknowledges 
" the United States to be free, sovereign, and inde- 
' pendent States; that he treats with them as such; 
' and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relin- 
' quishes all claims to the government, property, 
' and territorial rights of the same and every part 
' thereof." Although boundaries were established 
by this treaty for the States, yet there was no as- 
sumed resumption of territory theretofore granted 
by Great Britain to any of the colonies; but all 
their " territorial rights" are preserved to them as 
stated. By the colony charter of 1609, Virginia 
had " territorial rights," as against Great Britain, 
on the Pacific coast, comprehending twenty-eight 
degrees of latitude; and though she did not claim, 
as against France and Spain, any farther west than 
the Mississippi, she could claim as against Great 
Britain — no treaty or act of hers having restricted 
her western limits in favor of Great Britain. Apart, 
then, sir, from the claims of France and Spain, 
Virginia claimed rightfully from sea to sea; and 
this title, thus emanating from Great Britain herself, 
she granted to the United States by her deed of 
cession of the 1st of March, 1784. 
. Another view of the question, sir, and aux- 
iliary to this already presented, makes the case 
more conclusive; audit is this: Great Britain, 
by virtue of prior discovery, and of small and de- 
tached settlements made after the lapse of more 
than a century, claimed a perfect title to, and juris- 
diction over, the vast region stretching from the 
Atlantic to the Pacific, including Oregon, and cov- 
ered it with her colonial charters, as we have 
seen. 

By the treaty of Paris of 1763, before adverted 
to, sir, and by the treaty of peace of 1783, Great 
Britain abandoned her right to all the land covered 
by these charters west of the Mississippi river, 
(which of necessity accrued to Spain as the owner 
of Louisiana by the secret treaty of 1762,) and of 
all the country west to the Pacific, including the 
whole of Oregon; because there was no other 
Power then in existence asserting a claim to, or 
which had made a settlement at that time on, that 
coast; and the claim by continuity, extending east- 
ward from the Pacific, and westward from the Mis- 
sissippi, would lawfully cover the whole space. 

This treaty of 1763 was to close a war waged 
for territorial rights, and it was intended " to re- 
' move forever all subjects of dispute with regard to 
' the limits of the British and French territories 
' on the continent of ^Imerica;'" the secret treaty of 
1762 not being then known, by which Spain had 
succeeded to the rights of France. It was agreed 
by it " that, for the future, the confines heliceen the 
' dominions of his Britannic Majesty and those of 
' his most Christian Majesty in that part of the 
' world, shall be fixed irrevocably by a line drawn 
' along the middle of the river Mississippi, from 
' its source to the river Iberville, and from thence, 
• by a line drawn along the middle of this river 
' and the lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain , to the 
' sea." 



Spain, at the same time, sir, ceded to Great 
Britain Florida and all Spanish possessions east 
of the Mississippi; and these parties, by their re- 
speciive cessions, left the inference, although not 
expressed in the treaty, that the territory i^est of 
that river remained in the possession of either or 
both, France and Spain. The subsequent cession 
of Louisiana by Spain to France in 1800 enabled 
her to cede the same to the United States by the 
treaty of 1803. If not conveyed by that treaty 
sir, as not within the limits of Louisiana, it was 
within the dominions of Spain; and that Power 
by the Florida treaty of 1819, ceded to us all her 
" rights, claims, and pretensions" to the territorie 
on the Pacific north of the forty-second degree o 
north latitude. 

Mr. President, to say the least of this exhibition 
of title on our part, a strong prima facie case is 
made out, sufficient, in a court of justice, to put the 
opposing party on his defence; and if he shows no 
title on his part, a recovery must be had for the 
premises in question. It is a good title, and must 
prevail over a party showing and claiming none, 
although in the actual possession; such possession 
being by the consent of the party holding the 
title, and which the tenant is not at liberty to dis- 
pute. It is now for Great Britain to show her 
title. We have made out a prima facie case as 
against her, and can recover on its strength, un- 
le'ss some act has been done by us, or by one or 
all of the parties through whom we claim, to defeat 
a recovery. Since this charter of 1609, and the 
treaty of 1763, Great Britain could put forth no 
valid pretension, sir, to any part of tliis continent 
west of the Mississippi, unless she can found it on 
some transaction or treaty subsequent to those 
dates. The conclusion is irresistible — there is no 
escape from it: she has given up all the continent 
west of that river, and can claim nothing there, 
unless on the ground of some subsequent arrange- 
ment, by which a valid claim has been acquired. 
And this, sir, it is pretended, she has acquired 
by the convention between Spain and Great Brit- 
ain, signed at the Escurial on the 28th of October, 
1790, called the " Nootka Convention." This con- 
vention, allowing British subjects to make settle- 
ments for trade with the Indians, without any grant 
of soil or sovereignty, it is alleged, changes the 
position of the parties, and defeats our claim to a 
recovery. It remains to be seen, Mr. President, 
if this is so — if the convention does secure to or 
recognize in Great Britain such a territorial claim 
as will defeat our title. 

The language of the convention, sir, speaks for 
itself. There is not a syllable in it, nor a sentence, 
which can be tortured to convey the idea of a ces- 
sion of soil and sovereignty, or of a recognition 
of territorial or national rights, as pre-existing in 
Great Britain. It secured simply, sir, to the sub- 
jects of both Great Britain and Spain certain pnv- 
'ileges on that coast. Look, sir, at the fourth ar- 
ticle of the treaty of 1763 for the terms nations 
use in ceding soil and sovereignty. They are far 
dilTerent from those used in the Nootka conven- 
tion. There are words importing grants. 

No terms of grant or cession of any sort being 
found in the Nootka convention, it must be deem- 
ed, like the convention we are seeking to annul 



8 



and abrogate, a mere international arrangement for 
the purposes of trade, which can have no influence 
on the question of sovereignty and title. Great 
Britain was seeking no national sovereignty or 
jurisdiction on that coast, but to protect tlie indi- 
vidual property of her subjects there, and trading 
privileges, " for the purpose of carrying on their 
commerce with the natives of the country, or of 
making settlements there;" and these subject to 
many restrictions which Spain, as the rightful sov- 
ereign, could alone impose. 

It is difficult, sir, to misunderstand the relative 
position of the two parties to the convention — Spain 
claiming to be the sovereign of the country, and 
Great Britain simply stipulating for the protection 
of the private rights of her subjects within it, for 
the sole purposeof trading with the Indians on the 
Spanish coast ; stipulations which would be inno- 
cent and admissible if applied this very day in 
favor of a foreign Power to the Atlantic coast of 
the United States. Such a grant would be perfect- 
ly harmless, and would convey to such Power no 
more, and as much, sovereignty as was conveyed 
by the Nootka convention. 

Indeed, sir, Great Britain, so late as the 16th De- 
cember, 1826, declared to our Minister that she 
" claims no exclusive sovereignty over any portion 
' of that territory : her present claim, not in respect 
' to any part, but the whole, is limited to a right of 
'joint occupancy in common with other States, 
' leaving the right of exclusive dominion in abey- 
' ance." This, it must be admitted, sir, is a very 
vague and undefined claim; the convention recog- 
nising only the right of Britisli subjects to trade 
with the natives only, and even that subject to re- 
strictions. Yet Great Britain admits, that whatever 
the title may have been, "either on the part of Great 
' Britain, or on the part of Spain, prior to the con- 
' vention of 1790, it was from thenceforward no 
' longer to be traced in vague narratives of dis- 
' coveries, several of them admitted to be apocry- 
' phal, but in tlie text and stipulations of that con- 
' vention itself." Why, it may be asked, make 
such a convention with'Spain, if she had no right 
of soil or sovereignty there; if she was not enti- 
tled, on British principles of public law, to the full 
benefit of all her discoveries and settlements on that 
coast, which she was at so much pains and expense 
to make, through an organized department of her 
Government established for that express purpose? 
Great Britain, up to that time, sir, had never sent 
out a single ship for any such purpose. Drake 
was a pirate, and navigated the seas for plunder, 
and, instead of a halter, received from his sovereign 
knighthood. Cook was sent to discover the much 
wished-for western passage to China, and had strict 
orders not to take possession of any part of the 
coast already discovered or visited ])y any Euro- 
pean Power. In vninhabited countries he was to 
erect the proper symbols of possession. He made 
no discoveries, sir, whicji had not been made years 
before by Spanish navigators, except, perhaps, 
the Icy Cape. Perez was in Nootka Sound in 
1774, and Bodoga y Gluadra in 177.5 had named 
a mountain under tlie parallel of 57° jMount San 
Jacinto, M'hich Cook sav.- in 1778, and called Mount 
Edgecomb. And it may be asked, sir, wiiose right 
of " exclusive dominion" over this country was 



thus " to remain in abeyance.'" Did Spain, by 
that convention, aerree to anything more than this, 
that whilst the convention existed, her exclusive 
sovereignty and jurisdiction over the country, up 
to the 61st degree of north latitude, which slie had 
repeatedly asserted and insisted on before the Pow- 
ers of Europe, and not questioned by them, should 
not be exercised as to the subjects of Great Britain.' 

This, Mr. President, appears to me to be the 
true meaning and spirit of the convention of Noot- 
ka. Great Britain did not claim the sovereignty; 
the treaty was not made to convey the sovereign- 
ty; it was to re-establish British subjects in the 
possession of such "lands, buildings, vessels, and 
merchandise, and other property," of which, it 
was alleged, they had been forcibly dispossessed; 
"or," in default thereof, "a just compensation" 
to be made to them " for the losses which they had 
sustained." Neither the Message of the King, 
sir, nor the discussions in Parliament, nor the lan- 
guage of the diplomatic correspondence, nor the 
words of the treaty itself, make the least allusion 
to a claim of sovereignty by Great Britain, nor 
to a direct denial of such sovereignty as existing 
in Spain. The debates in Parliament, sir, which en- 
sued this convention, will be in vain appealed to, as 
furnishing any evidence that it was the understand- 
ing of any British statesman of that day, who took 
part in the discussion, that any territorial rights, 
jurisdiction, or sovereignty, were acquired by it. 
Besides, sir, whatever it may be, it was extorted 
from Spain whilst under a moral duress. She was 
not in a condition to resist any demand Great Brit- 
ain, in her arrogant spirit, might choose to make. 
It was an extortion which shocked the moral sense 
of nations. One of the most distinguished British 
historians, in commenting upon this transaction, 
so derogatory to the fame of a great and proud na- 
tion, says: 

"By the treaty of 176-3, the river Mississippi, 
' flowing from north to south, in a direct course of 
' fifteen hundred miles, was made the perpetual 
' boundary of the two empires; and the whole 
' country to the west of that vast river belonged to 
' his Catholic Majesty, by just as valid a tenure as 
' the country eastward of the river to the King of Eng- 
' land. Exclusive of the recent and decisive line 
' of demarcation, by which the relative and politi- 
' cal rights of both nations were clearly ascer- 
' tained, the Spanish Court referred to ancient trea- 
' ties, by which the rights of the Crown of Spain 
' were acknowledged in their full extent by Great 
' Britain." 

After commenting on the offer of Spain to refer 
the matter to any crowned head in Europe, which 
Great Britain rcifused, and the proceedings of the 
King and Parliament, he says: 

" No assistance being had from France, Spain, 
' yielding to necessity, complied with the hnrsh de- 
' mands for restittUion and indemnification; and 
' at length, on the 28lh of October, 1790, a con- 
' vention was signed at the Escurial, by which 
' every point in dispute was conceded by Spain. 
' The settlement of Nootka was restored, freenav- 
' igation and right of fishing in the southern Pa- 
' cific were confirmed to Britain; a full liberty of 
' trade, and even of settlement, was granted to all 
' the northwest coasts of America beyond the most 



9 



' northerly of the Spanish settlements, unaccompa- 

♦ nied, however, by any formal renuncialion of their 

* ris!:hts of sovereignty." 

This, Mr. President, is the language of the im- 
partial British historian, Belsham, (vol. 8, pp. 
3.']6-'7,) and clearly shows that no sovereignty 
was acquired by Great Britain over any part of the 
northwest coast; and such privileges as were actu- 
ally granted, if not exercised by the grantee du- 
ring the continuance of ownership by Spain, (and 
they were not,) would not attach to tlie territory 
when out of the possession of Spain. The con- 
vention woifld not bind the nation to whom Spain 
ceded. It is not a covenant running with the 
land, and to adhere to it through all the mutations 
of ownership. If that country, sir, had become 
settled after this convention by our own citizens, 
or subjects of a foreign Power, and they had 
established their independence, the convention 
would have been ipso facto abrogated, and equally 
so by a cession to another Power. Take the case 
of Texas, sir, for an example. Whilst an inde- 
pendent nation, she made treaties with several of 
the European Powers. She is now no longer such 
a nation — she is incorporated into our Union. 
What becomes of these treaties? Are they bind- 
ing upon us? Can those foreign Powers demand 
of us the fulfilment of the engagements of Texas? 
I do not so understand it, sir. No more can Great 
Britain claim, that the country upon the northwest 
coast ceded to us by Spain, is encumbered in our 
hands by stipulations which Spain entered into 
v/hilst she possessed it. 

But look, sir, to a part of the letter of Alleyne 
Fitzherbert, the British Minister at Madrid, to 
the Count Florida Blanca, the Spanish Minister, 
for the true understanding and real view which 
Great Britain then entertained of this question. He 
says, in his reply to the count's memorial, after 
speaking of the reparation to which England was 
entitled for the violence at Nootka: 

" Finally, as to the nature of the satisfaction 
' which the Court of London exacts on this occa- 
' sion, and on which your excellency appears to 
' desire some explanation, I am authorized, sir, to 
' assure you, that if his Catholic Majesty consents 
' to make a declaration in his name, bearmg in sub- 
' stance that he had determined to offer to his Bri- 
' tannic Majesty a just and equitable satisfaction for 
' the insult offered to his fag, such offer, joined to a 
^promise of making restitution of the vessels cap- 

* tured, and to indemnify the propnetors, under the 
' conditions specified in the official letter of Mr. 
' Meares, on the 16th of May, will be regarded by 

* hif Britannic Majesty as constituting in itself the 
' satisfaction demanded; and his said Majesty will 
' accept of it as such, by a counter declaration on 
' his part. " — {Appendix, vol. 8, page 33.) 

Florida Blanca made the required declaration, 
which Fitzherbert accepted by his promised coun- 
ter declaration. And now, sir, what does this Brit- 
ish historian say of the whole proceeding? Hear 
lum, sir: 

" But though England, at the expense of three 

* millions, extorted from the Spaniards a promise 
< of restoration and reparation, it is well ascertain- 

* ed— ^rsf , that the settlement in question never was 
« restored by Spain, nor the Spanish flag at Noot- 



' ka ever struck; and, secondly, that no settlement 
' has ever been subsequently attempted by England 
« on the California coast. The claim of right set 
» up by the Court of London, it is therefore plain, 
' has been virtually abandoned, notwithstanding 
' the menacing tone in which the negotiation was 
' conducted by the British administration, who can- 
' not escApe some censure for encouraging these vexa- 
' tious encroachments on the territorial rights of Spain.'" 
(Jlppendix, pp. 40, 41.) 

VVhat, then, Mr. President, becomes of the ter- 
ritorial claims of Great Britain upon the northwest 
coast; since, whatever they may have been "prior 
' to the convention of 1790, they were from thence- 
' forward no longer to be traced in vague narratives 
' ofdiScoveries, several of them admitted tobeapoc- 
' ryphal, but in the text and stipulations of that con- 
' vention itself," and they of the character I have 
shown them to be, on the authority of her own 
historians and her own published documents? 

And, sir, it may be observed here, that if these 
views of that convention are erroneous, and that 
England did actually acquire, or procure the recog- 
nition of, territorial claims there by this conven- 
tion, then, sir, it may well be insisted such claim, 
or title, or whatever it may be, enured, on prin- 
ciples of natural equity and justice, to us as her 
assignee, through Virginia, of the whole country. 
But, sir, this convention being of the character I 
have stated it to be, a mere international arrange- 
ment for trading purposes, on a remote coast, was ab- 
rogated, on principles of British law — and I prefer 
appealing to that in a controversy of this nature — 
as pronounced by one of her most distinguished 
ministers and statesmen. Lord Bathurst, in the 
negotiation of 1815 between England and the Uni- 
ted States, respecting the Nev/foundland fisheries. 
He said " Great Britain knows of no exception 
to the rule that all treaties are put an end to by a 
subsequent war between the same parties." The 
war of 1796, between Spain and Great Britain, 
abrogated this convention therefore, and it has 
never been renewed. No subsequent treaty be- 
tv\'een those Powers can be shown, which, in its 
terms, or by its spirit and intention, renews this 
convention. 

The mode, as practised, sir, by those very Pow- 
ers, of renewing a treaty after a war, is by an ex- 
press recital and renewal of it by date, or particular 
description and confirmation. The second section 
of the treaty of Paris of 1763, so often referred to, 
sir, shovv^s the mode in which Great Britain and 
Spain and France renew treaties. It is in this 
form: " The treaties of Westphalia of 1648; those 
' of Madrid, between the crowns of Great Britain 
' and Spain of 1667 and 1670; the treaties of peace 
' of Nimeguen of 1678 and 1679; of Ryswick of 
' 1697; those of peace and of commerce of Utrecht 
' of 1713; that of Baden of 1714; the treaty of the 
' triple alliaace of the Hague of 1717; that of the 
' quadruple alliance of London of 1718; the defaii- 
' tive treaty of Vienna of 1738; the definitive treaty 
' of Aix-la-Chapelle of 1748 ; and that of Madrid 
' between the crowns of Great Britain and Spain 
' of 1750; as well as the treaties between the crowns 
' of Spain and Portugal of the 13th of Febniary, 
' 1668, of the 6th of February, 1715, and of the 
' 12th of February, 1761, and that of the 11th of 



10 



' April, 1713, between France and Portugal, with 
' the guaranties of Great Britain, serve as a basis 
' and foundation to the peace and to tlie present 
' treaty; and for this purpose tliey are all )ene\ved 
' and confirmed in the best form, as well as the 
' treaties in general irhicli suhsiated betioeen the high 
' contracting parlies before tht icar, us if they irere in- 
' serted here, word for word, so that they are to be 
' exactly observed for the future in their ichole tenor," 

SfC. 

This, sir, is the regular mode of reviving treaties 
whicli have been abrogated by a war — not by si- 
lent inference, but by express recognition and enu- 
meration; for in this mode all doubt and uncer- 
tainty as to the intention of the parties is removed. 
The treaty of Madrid, of 1814, did not, nor was 
it intended to, revive the Nootka convention, or 
any commercial treaty or international arrange- 
ment which war had terminated, except those re- 
latins to commerce between Great Britain and Old 
Spain, not including her American colonies or dis- 
tant possessions; for one clause of that treaty stip- 
ulates, if the trade is opened to her colonies, Eng- 
land shall be placed on the footing of the most fa- 
vored nation in respect to it. How, then, it may 
well be inquired, can " the text and stipulations of 
the Nootka convention," which did not, virtually, 
grant anything to Great Britain, but merely permit- 
ted British subjects to settle for trading purposes 
upon the northwest coast, and did not even grant 
to them the fee simple of their settlements, be now 
regarded as such a foundation of title in Great Brit- 
ain as to justify her in demanding of us, who have 
succeeded, by fair purchase, to all the rights of 
Spain, a division of the country.' With equal 
propriety, sir, might a tenant at will, or at suffer- 
ance, who ha.s occupied the premises of another 
under a license unmolested for a series of years, 
demand of the proprietor, on receiving a notice to 
quit, a partition of the farm, or the occupied field. 
1 insist, therefore, sir, in view of all these facts, 
arguments, and inferences, that Spain had not en- 
cumbered her title before she passed it to us. It 
was not affected by the convention of Nootka, 
and our title through Spain is therefore " clear and 
unquestionable.'' 

I insist, also, Mr. President, that there is great 
propriety and manifest justice in according to 
Spain all the benefits of these principles of British 
law to which I have referred, and which Great 
Britain had forced all nations to acknowledge; be- 
cause Spain had, for many years, made it a prom- 
inent feature in her policy to originate, and at great 
expense promote, voyages of discovery through- 
out the whole extent of the northwest coast. So 
important, sir, was this object in her view, and so 
deeply was it ingrafted upon her system, that she 
erected a distinct department, (called the Marine 
Department of San Bias,) ])urposely to conduct ex- 
plorations and surveys of the northwest coast of 
America. She made, sir, all the most important 
discoveries on that coast, and named its rivers, 
bays, capes, and headlands, and followed up her 
discoveries by such settlements as were suited to 
her then comlilion; or if no settlements followed, 
continual claim was made, which no nation ques- 
tioned. And why, sir, I would ask, were we not 
entitled to the benefit of this as claimants under 



Spain of that very title which these acts of hers 
originated? 

As to the true exposition of the public law, sir, 
upon the question of title arising from discovery 
only, nothing conclusive can be urged. We 
have seen, sir, how Great Britain has under- 
stood and enforced it. It cannot be contended, sir, 
in any view of the cjuestion, that a nation is bound 
forthwith to follow up a discovery by settlement. 
As to that, her condition, the exigencies of the 
State, must be considered; but she must do some 
act which will be notice to the world that she is 
determined to appropriate the discovery to herself. 
What particular act this shall be, is not settled. 
It must, in the nature of the subject, depend on very 
many circumstances — no invariable rule can be ap- 
plied. Yet some act must be done, evincing this 
design of appropriation; but at what time, must 
always be an open question. Spain did as much 
to notify the world of her intention as any other 
nation, that is certain, which had originated dis- 
coveries. 

Another view of this convention, Mr. President, 
as a foundation of claim by Great Britain, may 
with propriety be urged. Whilst it was, as now 
alleged by Great Britain, in full force, why did she, 
in 1818, before we had acquired the Spanish title, 
voluntarily enter into the convention with us on the 
20th of October of that year, so inconsistent, as it 
is, with her engagements with Spain under the 
Nootka convention.' And why did she not base 
her pretensions at that time, as she does now, on 
its "texts and stipulations," and not on "vague 
narratives of discoveries, some of them admitted to 
be apocryphal .''' If she really believed the con- 
vention of Nootka was in force at that time, it is 
incomprehensible that she should not have urged 
it. By neglecting to do so, sir, these inferences 
are fair and rational: 1st. That Great Britain no 
longer considered it in existence or binding upon 
her; otherwise, she could not have violated her ob- 
ligations to Spain, by covering the same ground 
in a treaty with another Power. 2d. That, by 
transferring her obligations from Spain to the Uni- 
ted States, Great Britain thereby acknowledged a 
right in the United States, independently of Spain, 
as existing in virtue of our well-known prior dis- 
covery, exploration, and settlement. This con- 
vention of Nootka, supposed by Great Britain in 
1818 to be extinct and not alluded to, was made 
an element in the controversy, by our own Minis- 
ter in 1824, who brought it forward under instruc- 
tion from his Government. 

Thus forbearing, sir, in 1818, to present her 
claims under the Nootka convention. Great Brit- 
ain can now repose on no other right than that, 
gratuitously, without any equivalent whatever, 
granted to her subjects by the convention with 
us of that year, and indefinitely continued by the 
convention of the 6th of August, 1827; for by the 
conclusion of the former treaty, she considered 
and treated that of 1790 with Spain as a nullity, 
and, thus regarding it, it follows, as a necessary 
and inevitable consequence, that, as by her own a«- 
knoirledgment ice ivei-e the party in possession, the 
right of sovereignty resided in the United States. 

Should it be necessary, Mr. President, to adduce 
strong circumstantial proof of the conscious want 



11 



of claim of Great Britain to any part of the north- 
west coast south of 54° 40', derived from whatever 
soured she may now choose to select, it may be 
found, sir, in the most solemn and imposing form. 
By the convention between the United States and 
Russia, made on the 17th of April, 1824, it was 
agreed that she should make no settlement south 
of 54° 40' north latitude, and we none north of 
that parallel. It is a fact, in the history of that 
transaction, that it was contemplated to have, at 
that time, a joint convention iDctween England, 
Russia, and the United States; but after the an- 
nunciation by President Monroe of the non-colo- 
nization principle, in regard to this continent, it 
was abandoned, and separate conventions were 
framed. Great Britain being thus aware, sir, of 
this arrangement between us and Russia, and 
wishing to secure the sovereignty and possession 
of a part of that coast, entered into negotiations 
with Russia for that object; and by the convention 
of the 28th of February, 1825, more than ten 
months after the date of the convention between 
the United States and Russia, Great Britain ac- 
cepted a stipulation restrictins; her to the coast 
lying between 54° 40' and 5G° of north latitude. 
In thus accepting, sir, this restriction on the south, 
either Great Britain tacitly relinquished any pre- 
tensions to interfere with the territory of the Uni- 
ted States, or the Russian Government undertook 
to prevent such interference (so far as she could 
do it by treaty) with the rights of the United 
States, so recently eickiiowledged by herself, under 
the solemnity of treaty forms. The former is to 
be presumed, sir, rather than the latter; and a mag- 
nanimous spirit would attribute such acknowledg- 
ment by the British Government to a conscious- 
ness of the superior title of the United States to that 
territory above all other nations, we having then 
the entire Spanish title, rather than to the tame 
submission of a nation possessing a power more 
extensive than that of Rome in the plenitude of 
her glory. 

It may be said, sir, that the arrangement be- 
tween Great Britain and Russia did not affect any 
conflicting claims as between Great Britain and 
the United States to any territory south of 54° 40'; 
but the value of this suggestion will be properly 
appreciated, sir, when it is considered, that in the 
negotiations between the United States and Russia 
no notice was taken by either party of any claim 
whatever of Great Britain to any part of that terri- 
tory; which, it is not to be supposed would have 
been the case, had any known, well-founded claim 
on the part of Great Britain existed. A nation of 
her power would scarcely have been treated with 
so much indifference, not to say disregard, by the 
other contracting parties. 

Moreover, sir, had Great Britain considered her- 
self in 1824 as possessing any right^over the terri- 
tory south of 54° 40', or had she considered herself 
as having " a claim not in respect to any part, but 
to the whole, limited to a right of joint occupancy 
in common vnth other States, leaving the right of do- 
minion in abeyance," it is not to be imagined, as 
observed by the present distinguished Envo)'^ of 
Great Britain to our Government, (in speaking of 
the pretensions of Spain to the same territory,) that 
Great Britain " would have passively submitted 



« to see the contending claims of [Russia] and the 
' United States to a portion of that territory the siib- 
'ject of formal diplomatic transactions between 
' those two nations." 

It was important, sir, to the interests of the United 
States that an arrangement of this kind should be 
made with Russia after we had succeeded to the 
title of Spain, as Russia had eight establishments 
on that coast of very considerable antiquity at 58 
and 59 degrees north latitude, composed of several 
hundred individuals, and, on the principles of con- 
tiguity and continuity, might well have claimed a 
m'ore southern boundary ; and she was the only Pow- 
er whose pretensions we might have found difficult 
to resist, being coterminous with us in our exten- 
sion north on the same principle of continuity; for 
it is admitted, sir, on all sides, that the claim of 
Spain to Nootka at 49° 30' is good, by virtue of 
her settlement there, made in 1789. Russia, then, 
extending- south from 59°, and the United States, 
under Spain, north from Nootka, would bring the 
line very near the parallel of 54° 40', which these 
parties did in fact establish. 

Believing, Mr. President, the grounds set forth 
to be conclusive of the title of the United States to 
the territory in question from latitude 42° to 54° 
40' north, I do not deem it necessary to enter into 
a discussion of many considerations pertaining to 
the case which have been brought to our view by 
the able efforts of distinguished diplomatists. It 
may, however, sir, not be inappropriate, as in close 
connexion with this subject, and as having a favor- 
able bearing upon our title, to notice the just re- 
marks of Lord Bathurst, in his communication to 
our Secretary of State of the 30th of October, 1815, 
discussions being then pending as to the effect and 
operation of the treaty of Ghent, but a short time 
previously concluded : 

"It will not be denied," he said, " that the main 
' object of the treaty of Ghent was the mutual res- 
' tofation of all territory taken by either party from 
' the other during the war. As a necessary conse- 
' quence of such a stipulation, each ■partxj reverted to 
' their boxmdanes as before the icar, icilhout reference 
' to the title by which those possessions were acquired, 
' or to the mode in which their boundaries had been 
'■ previovsly fixed. In point of fact, the United States 
' had before acquired possession of territories asserted to 
' depend on other titles than those lohich Great Britain 
' coidd confer.''' 

Again he says: " It is justly stated by the Amer- 
' ican Minister, that tlje United States did not 
' need a new grant of the boundary line. The war 
' did not arise out of a contested boundary; and 
'Great Britain, therefore, by the act of treating 
' with the United States recognised that natiori in its 
'former dimensions, excepting so far as the jus belli 
' had interfered with them; and it was the object 
' of the treaty of Ghent to cede such rights to ter- 
« ritory as the jus belli had conferred." 

These remarks, sir, applied to the condition of 
the question concerning the territory of Oregon, 
v/ill be seen to have a peculiar and powerful force. 

The jus belli, sir, had given to Great Britain the 
American settlement of Astoria at the mouth of the 
Columbia river— the symbol of our sovereignty 
and title there — the rightful possession of which 
had been acquired by us previously, and rested on 



12 



" other titles than those which Great Britain could 
confer." Tlie main ohjcct of tlie treaty of Ghent 
was, " the mutual restoration of «// territory taken 
by either party from the otlicr during the war." 
The United Stales claimed title to the whole terri- 
tory in virtue of discovery, exploration, and settle- 
ment, in their own right, and by cession from 
France; and " without reference to the title by 
which it was acquired," they reverted to the riglit 
as it existed before the war. Before the war, sir, 
we had exclusive possession of the territory of 
Oregon — of distinct parts in the name of the whole. 
By the war we lost it; and by the unconditional 
surrender of this part, on the Gth of October, 1818, 
without any reservation whatever, we were from 
that moment, again in legal contemplation, in the 
exclusive possession and became sovereigns (k fac- 
to if not dejure, of the whole country claimed; the 
British Government, through their authorized func- 
tionary, admitting, " in the most ample extent, our 
right to be reinstated, and to be the party in posses- 
sion while treating of the title." Great Britain is 
estopped from denying our right to be in posses- 
sion by her own acknowledgment; she caimot now" 
contest it. This right of possession, sir, we now, 
and from thence, have wholly enjoyed; and we 
cannot be deprived of the right, except by force or 
by a voluntary cession on our part. Having thus, 
sir, our sovereignty acknowledged, fourteen days 
after the restoration of Astoria, on the 20th of Oc- 
tober, 1818, without any equivalent whatever — un- 
less the concessions in the first article of the con- 
vention of that date were intended by the high 
contracting parties as an equivalent — we agreed 
with Great Britain, that this territory "shall, to- 
' gether with its harbors, bays, and creeks, and 
' tlie navigation of all rivers within the same, be free 
' and open for the term of ten years from the date 
• of the signature of the present convention, to the 
' vessels, citizens, and subjects of the tvs'o Powers ; 
' it being well understood that this agreement is 
' not to be construed to the prejudice ol'any claim 
' which either of the two high contracting parties 
' may have to any part of the said country, nor 
' shall it be taken to afi'ect the claims of any other 
' Power or State to any part of the said country; 
' the only nhjvct of the high contracting parties, in 
' that resjicct, being to prevent disputes and differ- 
' ences among themselves." 

This convention, sir, it will be perceived, ad- 
mils no claim on the part of Great Britain to a foot 
of territory there — no sovereignty, no right of soil, 
no territorial jurisdiction whatever. It is a mere 
easement granted to Great Britain for the sole pur- 
pose of preventing disputes and differences between 
the parties through collisions among their citizens 
and subjects, and originated in motives of policy. 
British traders, after the capture in 1813, sought 
the country in great numbers, enriching themselves 
from its wild productions, with whom our own 
citizens, allured by the same object, might come 
in collision, from which angry disputes and na- 
tional diificultios might ensue. It was deemed pol- 
itic, sir, under such circumstances, to license this 
use of the country for ten years, as it was not then 
needed for any national purpose, or expected at 
that day ever to become an important appendage 
to our Union. I shall not say, sir, that this con- 



vention was not a wise arrangement at the time it 
was entered into. No right in Great Britain is 
acknowledged by it. There is no such idea in any 
part of the instrument; no recognition expressed oi 
implied of a right in Great Britain to any \n\n or 
the country. And at that time, too, sir, we had 
not the Spanish title upon which to repose, nor in 
otlier respects were we then in a condition to assert 
more resolutely than w^e did our right as against 
Great Britain, independent of the title of S])ain. 
It was, perhaps, sir, sufficient for us at that time 
to have our right of possession acknowledged by 
that Power. The ten years Ijeing about to expire, 
the term was indefinitely extended, very unwisely 
1 think, sir, in view of our then altered circum- 
stances, by the convention of the 6ih of August, 
1827, which we now seek to abrogate; and when 
abrogated, we are for the third time in the exclu- 
sive possession of the country as its legitimate 
sovereign; a trespass upon which, wilfully, and by 
force, by any other Power, would be aa act of war, 
to be treated accordingly. Having the right to be 
the party in possession, on the admission of Great 
Britain 'through Lord Casllereagh in 1818, that 
right must necessarily be exclusive. Great Brit- 
ain will have no right to occupy any part of the 
country; for if we are of right the party in posses- 
sion, she cannot"be there except wrongfully. Such 
subjects of a foreign Power as shall choose, after 
that event, to remain in the country, would neces- 
sarily become subject to our laws and jurisdiction; 
and on taking the oath of allegiance, would share 
with our own citizens all the benefits of our na- 
tional liberality, as grantees of lands, and ]iarticipate 
in the advantages humanity derives, of whatever 
country or creed, from our much-cherished and 
free institutions. 

I think, sir, the time has arrived when this con- 
vention should be terminated; and I had hoped we 
would have voted upon the proposition, without 
debate, with great unanimity and promptitude. 
At present, sir, although we have the atknow- 
ledged right of possession to the territory of Ore- 
gon, in the greater part of it, — in all of it north of 
the Columbia river, except a small American set- 
tlement at Bulfinch's Harbor, Great Britain, by 
her subjects and her chartered power, is in the 
actual and exclusive possession. So exclusive 
was this possession, that the northern bank of 
that river was known and called the " British 
side," and the opposite bank the "American side." 
Our own citizens, Mr. President, derive no benefit 
whatever from this convention; all the advantages 
are on the side of British sulijeets; and we, at the 
same time, the true owners of the whole coun- 
try. This being the case, sir, unless we take some 
decided action in order to obtain, on our part, that 
exclusive possession wliich belongs to the riglit, 
they will continue to derive these benefits, to the 
exclusion of our citizens. It seems to me, there- 
fore, sir, the advantages being all on the side of 
Great Britain, unless we give the notice, unless 
we express a desire to terminate the convention, it 
will never be terminated by Great Britain. Notice 
will never come from that side, sir. She has all 
she desires, as things now stand, and has, there- 
fore, no stimulant to act. She will not take the 
' initiative. She does not desire to be remitted to 



13 



her original barren pretensions; ^v•hilst we en- 
counter no danger, by reposing upon a title " the 
best in existence." And, as was said the otlier 
day by the Senator of Massachusetts, [Mr. Web- 
ster,] it cannot give offence to Great Britain, be- 
ing but in accordance with a treaty stipulation; and 
I will add, sir, she would have no right to demand 
the reason for such action on our part, nor would 
we have tJie right to ask of her the reasons should 
slie choose to give the notice, but receive it in amity 
should it come from that Power. This convention, 
sir, is an obstacle in our path of progress, and we 
must get rid of it. So long as it exists, we can do 
nothing effective; we cannot extend our laws in 
their most ample scope over the country for the 
protection of our citizens there; we cannot erect 
means of defence or of refuge; we cannot make 
grants of land in fee to the settlers who are now 
there in tliousands, reposing with confidence upon 
tlie firmness and justice of a Government they 
dearly love; in short, sir, we can do no effective act 
whilst the convention exists. By abrogating it, 
we are at once enabled to exercise, in the fullest 
extent, any act of sovereignty we may desire — it 
will restore us to freedom and enable us to pursue 
such a course for our own interest as we may 
choose, in our wisdom, to adopt. If we do not 
take this course, if we do not give this notice, if we 
allow things to remain as they are, there is mani- 
fest danger, before the lapse of many years, that 
difficulties will so grow up and thicken, that a war 
may be the result; or else, that a country, favored 
by Providence beyond almost all others in all the 
great essentials of human happiness, and so neces- 
sary to us in an enlarged view of our future des- 
tiny, may become, by our unpardonable neglect, an 
independent nation under some foreign guaranty, 
and possessed of elements and a position well cal- 
culated to annoy and embarrass us hereafter. Sir, 
there are strong indications of a desire in several 
quarters that such should be its destiny. It is the 
opinion of gentlemen of great intelligence, high 
character and influence, that it is not possible that 
Oregon should long continue to be an appendage 
of our Government, but must be independent. ' 

I think differently, sir, if we do our duty. I 
think, as it is an integral and most important 
part of our empire, we should be awake 4o its 
preservation. If we are mindful of this germ 
the enterprise of our people has planted on the 
shores of the Pacific, if we nurture it and cherish 
it, as it sliould be nurtured and cherished, bestow- 
ing upon it our kind, protecting care, it cannot but 
grow in beauty and expand in strength, and, de- 
riving its sustenance from the parent stem, will 
flourish with it in undying verdure. 

It depends upon ourselves, whether this coun- 
try shall remain with us or not. Its destiny is, 
under Providence, in our own power, and we en- 
counter a most weighty and fearful responsibility, 
if by any supineness, timidity, or want of resolu- 
tion on our ])art, its preservation shall be jeopard- 
ed, and, in the end, lost to us forever. 

If it was proper, sir, in the nascent state of the 
Atlantic colonies, for Great Britain to assert, and 
prosecute, and establish by force of arms, and by 
arguments from tlie cannon's mouth, the principles 
shedid establish for the extension of her territory, — 



how much more proper and necessary is it for us, 
sir, in this our age, with all the improvements in 
mechanical philosophy and the arts, by which, 
space is annihilated and distance measured, not by 
miles but by minutes, with our teeming millions on 
the vast plains of the West, in reach of the Pacific — 
many thousands of whom have gone to settle upon 
its sliores and upon the fertile banks of its rivers — 
that the full benefit of this principle of British law 
should be claimed by us, and we be as ready and 
as willing to contend for it, even unto war, as she 
was, with our aid, against France. And why should 
we hesitate to take the initiative of measures which 
wilj force her, sir, to acknowledge her own doc- 
trine? The judgment of the civilized world will 
be pronounced against her should she disavow the 
doctrine, and the sin of a War, should one follow, 
will lie heavy on her soul. 

Relying, Mr. President, on the principle of pub- 
lic law, as to territorial rights, taught us on the 
Heights of Abraham and on Braddock's field , Great 
Britain will have no reason tp complain if we urge 
them against her, who originated them and gave 
them currency. And, sir, when Oregon shall be 
filled with our people, (as it soon will be if thi& Gov- 
ernment is true to its own interests,) no apprehen- 
sions of any foreign intruder, under what flag so- 
ever he may seek to make his entrance, need be en- 
tertained. It is our true policy, then, sir, to give 
the notice, and assert and maintain the principle of 
British law which England is estopped from de- 
nying, and which establishes our title to the Rus- 
sian line. If, however, sir, I could be made to be- 
lieve that the effect of the notice would be, as has 
been intimated, to place our Government in a posi- 
tion to compromise our undoubted right, upon any 
other line south of that, I would vote against it, 
and fall back upon the "masterlyinactivity"of the 
Senator of South Carolina, [Mr. Calhoun,] as the 
wisest policy, and leave to time to accomplish the 
great object to which the whole American heart is 
so earnestly and truly devoted. But, sir,- 1 have 
full faith in the prudence, firmness, and sagacity of 
the Executive, and do not anticipate any such ca- 
lamitous result. I do not suffer myself for a mo- 
ment to believe that he will violate his published 
pledges. No, sir; I have implicit faith in him, and 
that 'he will so act on this and on all other great oc- 
casions, in which the interests and honor of his 
country are involved, as to command the unqual- 
ified approbation of those who have raised him to 
his present elevated position. 

Considering, sir, the contiguity of Oregon to 
our western settlements, and as the only vent, 
westward, of the vast surplus productions of the 
rich basin of the Mississippi to the shores of A.sia 
with her millions of inhabitants, and its accessi- 
bility by railroads from the Atlantic States, bring- 
ing them also into close proximity to the same 
great markets; and considering, also, that our re- 
public opens her public domain to the over-popu- 
lated countries of Europe, and offers to all who 
may seek it cheap fee-simple farms, and the full 
enjoyment of our free institutions, we cannot- be 
charged, sir, in desiring to possess Oregon, with 
selfish or ambitious views, or with a spirit of mere' 
territorial aggrandizement; but the impartial and 
the just will see in it a desire only to extend more 



14 



widely the area of human freedom, and diffuse 
more broadly the means of human happiness — as 
an extension, sir, of that gra/id theatre, on which 
God, in his providence, and in his own appointed 
time, intends to work out thai high destiny he has 
assigned for the wliole human race. 

But, Mr. President, it is said the difficulty must 
be settled by negotiation. The notice, sir, M-ill not 
p event negotiations; on the contrary, it will stim- 
ulate the parties to bring all differences growing 
out of this controversy to a conclusion. There 
are many things to negotiate about, sir ; many im- 
portant questions and interests which are fit sub- 
jects of negotiation; and among thenr are those 
pertaining to the Hudson ^s Bay Company. And 
I believe, sir, that all the difficulty, or nearly all, 
which surrounds this question, so far as Great 
Britain is concerned, is the obligations she is under 
to that corporation, growing out of the renewal of 
their charter in 1838, for twenty-one years, in 
which, by the way, sir, the privilege was reserved 
to Great Britain to grant, for the purpose of settle- 
ment or colonization, any of the lands comprised 
within the limits of their charter. In the corre- 
spondence with the British Colonial Secretary of 
State, which led to this renewal, sir, the company 
urge, as a reason for it, that " they have succeeded, 
' after a severe and expensive competition, in estab- 
' lishing their settlements, and obtaining a decided 
' superiority, if not an exclusive enjoyment of the 
' trade; and that they occupy the country between 
' the Rocky mountains and the Pacific, by six per- 
' manent establishments on the coast, sixteen in 
' the interior country, besides several migratory 
' and hunting parties; and they maintain a marine 
' of six armed vessels, one of them a steam-vessel, 
' on the coast." They also speak of their large 
forms, and of other projects, having reference to 
an export trade, and the settlement of their retired 
servants in the country. All these things, sir, su- 
perinduced by the act of Great Britain, tend, no 
doubt, to embarrass her, as she may, injustice, be 
compelled to answer, over to that company, for 
any injury that may result to it from a surrender 
of her pretensions to the country. 

Now, sir, it would be manifestly proper for the 
two Governments to confer together on these mat- 
ters, to negotiate about them, and perhaps, sir, it 
might be found to be expedient to indemnify this 
company for their outlays there, and concede to 
them the use of the Columbia river for a i'ew years, 
to facilitate their exit, with their property, from 
the country, and as auxiliary to winding up their 
affairs. So for as these and kindred matters are 
concerned, sir, I hope negotiation will go on, but 
am utterly oiiposed to it, if it is to involve a ces- 
sion of any portion of the country to Great Britain. 
I am opposed to that, sir, and will never sanction 
such an act by my vote. A nation, sir, submit- 
ting to a negotiation which shall end in compromis- 
ing a claim so valid as ours, by yielding up a part, 
when it has strength enough to preserve the whole, 
does, in my judgment, an unpardonable wrong, 
and'becomes dishonored, not only in the estimation 
of its own people, but of the world. I will never 
consent to it, sir, let what may hapjien. 

But it is said, sir, the matter should be referred 
to arbitration, and that such a mode is in strict 



conformity with the law and practice of nations in 
like cases; and our Government is censured, sir, 
for not accepting a proposition of tliis nature, 
when lately tendered by the British Envoy. The 
Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Crittexden] said 
the other day, that he did not know what right 
we possessed to exalt ourselves above all law 
heretotbre recognised amongst nations, and to say 
that our territorial disputes are to be placed above 
all ai-bitration; and then, with great emphasis, 
remarked, "what a glorious homage would this 
' Republic render to its own best principles by ac- 
' cepting the arbitration of a trlbunfil composed of 
' men distinguished only for their talents, knowl- 
' edge, science, and moral worth." Sir, I should be 
very much opposed to submit a question of territo- 
rial right to any Power on earth, or to any board of 
civilians, in whatever form it might be proposed. 
There are, to my mind^sir, insuperable objections 
to it, and it does not seem to me to be practicable 
according to the proposition of the Senator. Leav- 
ing out of view all others, there is one fatal ob- 
jection to such a proceeding, and that is, the par- 
ties cannot be compelled to abide by the award; 
there is no power by which it can be enforced. 
Instead of settling the question finally, it might 
render it more complicated than before; and in the 
event of a refusal by one party to stand by the 
award, war most probably would ensue. Suppose 
the Columbia river, sir, should be declared by the 
arbitrator as the line, in conformity with the Brit- 
ish proposition: can any one believe this Govern- 
ment or country would abide by it? If a mon- 
arch is made the arbitrator, we would have his pre- 
judices to encounter, and incur the risk of his sub- 
mitting the question to one of his Ministers, or Sec- 
retaries, or Chiefs of a Bureau; and in either case, 
we would have no personal knowledge of some of 
the parties by whom the award is to be made. 
The arbitrators, whoever they might be, would 
not be required to be governed by the right of the 
case, nor by the strict law of the case; nor would 
they be thus governed. Other principles — con- 
siderations of expediency, suggestions of policy, 
and, withal, a desire to give each claimant some- 
thing — would naturally influence them. Sir, this 
Administration could not stand a single moment 
before the American people, if, by its act, by re- 
ferring a question of this nature to the decision of 
a board of arbitrators, the entire control of the 
Pacific coast, and of the commerce with China, 
and the foreign export and import trade of the 
western States now opening to them with the east, 
shall be lost to them. No Administration could 
survive a surrender of such important prospective 
interests. Arbitration, sir, is out of the question. 
In controversies between individuals submitted to 
arbitration, the arbitrators are known to the par- 
ties, and a power is vested in the courts to enforce 
obedience to the awards but there is no tribunal to 
com})el obedience between nations. The whole 
thing is surrounded by difficulties. Besides, sir, 
there is really nothing here to arbitrate about; for 
a proposal to arbitrate, and an acceptance, presup- 
pose a right exists to a part of the country, which 
we deny. Where a right to coterminous terri- 
tory is admitted to exist, but the boundary un- 
defined, it may be proper, in such a case, to re- 



15 



fer the matter to mutual friends, to establish the 
Hue of boundary. That was the case in regard to 
our nortlieasteru boundary, and it was referred to 
the King of tlie Netherlands; and he, instead of 
attending- to the terms of the submission, and fol- 
lowino; the highlands, assumed the valley of the St. 
John's river as the true boundary, which satisfied 
neitlier party. But, sir, it is unnecessary to say 
anything about arbitration, as the Government has, 
in the most decided manner, rejected the propo- 
sition; and there is no wish, I am sure, on the part 
of this country, that it should be accepted at any 
future time. Whilst negotiating, sir, in 1818, upon 
this very question of Oregon, then called "the set- 
tlement on the Columbia river," a reference of it to 
the Emperor of Russia was in contemplation. The 
action of our Government then, sir, upon the sug- 
gestion, was not different from the present. In a 
despatch from our Secretary of State, (Mr. Ad- 
ams,) of the date of July 28, 1818, to our negotia- 
tors, (iVlessrs. Patsh and Gallatin,) I find the fol- 
lowing passage, which I will read for the benefit 
of the Senate from the 4th volume of American 
State Papers, title "Foreign Relations," p. 377: 

"The expediency itself of submitting questions 
' of territorial rights and boundaries, in discussion. 
' between two nations, to the decision of a third, 
' was unusual, if not entirely new, and, should 
' the contingency occur, will probably encoimter 
' difficulties of execution not foreseen at the time 
' when the stipulation was made of resorting to it. 
' The subjects in controversy are of a nature too 
' intricate and compl'^ated, requiring, on the part of 
' tlie arbitrator, a patience of investigatioif and 
' research, historical, political, legal, geographical, 
' and astronomical, for which it is impossible to 
' conceive that the sovereign of a great empire 
' could personally bestow the time." 

This, sir, was American doctrine then, and it is 
correct. Mr. Adams was right, duestions of this 
description should not be submitted to a foreign 
Power, for the reasons giving by him, and those I 
have given — that there is no ]:)OV.'er existing to en- 
force the award, and if one of the parties does not 
choose to abide by it, it can only operate to produce 
the conflict which it was the object of the arbitra- 
tion to avoid. While speaking of this subject, sir, I 
wish to notice the peculiar phraseology of the let- 
ter of the British Minister conveying the proposal, 
to the rejection of which so much exception seems 
to have been taken. In his note of the 10th Janu- 
ary last, to our Secretary of State, after alluding 
to the rejection of his first proposition, as contain- 
ed in his note of the 27th of December, for a refer- 
ence of the question " of an equitable partition of 
the territory," and the objections of our Secretary 
to it, he says : 

" This premised, the object of the undersigned 
' in addressing to Mr. Buchanan the present com- 
' munication is, to ascertain from him whether, 
' supposing the British Government to entertain no 
' objection to such a course, it would suit the views 
' of the United States Government to refer to arbi- 
' tration, not, as has already been pi'oposed, the 
' question of an equitable partition of the territory, 
' but the question of title in either of the two Pow- 
' ers to the whole territory, subject of course to 
• the condition, that if neither should be found, in 



'the opinion of the arbitrator, to pos.se.S3 a com- 
' plete title to the whole territory, there should, in 
' that case, be assigned to each that portion of terri- 
' tory which would, in the opinion of the arbitra- 
' ting Power, be called for by a just appreciation 
' of the respective claims of each." 

Now, sir, it will be jierceived, here is no dis- 
tinct proposition to refer the question of title at 
all: he merely inquires. Supposing Great Britain 
should entertain no objection to refer the question 
of title to arbitration, what wnvild the Government 
of the United States be willing to do.' It would 
have been proper, in my judgment, to •decline a 
reply to a proposition presented in such a form, 
as it was not a definite proposal to submit the 
question of title. It is a ''fishing^'' question. A 
hypothetical case is presented, which our Govern- 
ment might well refuse to entertain, and made 
subject to the condition, on the hapjtcning of a 
contingency, of an equitable division of the terri- 
tory. ' Sir, we do not desire a division of the terri- 
tory. I am instructed, and feel pleasure in acting 
up to those instructions, to oppose by my vote a 
surrender of any portion of territory rightfully be- 
longing to us through the instrumentality of arbi- 
tration by crowned heads, or a board of civilians, 
or by negotiation in any form. I would advise 
negotiation, sir, as I have already said, in regard 
to all other matters growing out of this question, 
or with which it is legitimately connected; and 
should be disposed to be liberal. I would grant 
to the Hudson Bay Cowipany, which has so much 
at stake, certain privileges for a limited period. I 
would do nothing that is unjust, nor advise it to 
be done; and, in taking a retrospect of our past 
history, sir, I believe the greatest enemy of repub- 
lican principles cannot point his finger to a single 
act of national injustice committed by us. It may 
be said, to the glory of the American name, that 
not a single act in our whole career can be found, 
by our most unscrupulous enemy, calculated to 
stamp injustice upon our national character. We 
have never done injustice; we have always sought, 
in our national conduct, in all our difficulties and 
embarrassments, to carry out the golden maxim, 
" Do imto others as ye would they should do 
unto you." Our reputation, in. this regard, is pure 
and unspotted, sir; and I desire to keep it so. I 
wish to do nothing bordering even upon the con- 
fines of injustice; and therefore, sir, if the Hudson 
Bay Company have important interests there — 
and that they have, I am free to admit — and the 
British Government is responsible to them for any 
injury which may result, in consequence of any 
disposition of the country policy may require Great 
Britain to make; and if, in order to carry on their 
trade a few years longer, and settle their affairs, 
they should desire the use of the river for a short 
period, I would concede it to them most cordially. 
I would afford them every facility for closing up 
their affairs, and leaving the country to our exclu- 
sive jurisdiction; but to no division of the territory 
could I ever consent. We all recollect, sir, that 
memorable display of the wisdom of Solomon — 
the case of the living child claimed by two mothers 
— and the exhibition of true parental affection on 
that occasion. She who consented to the division 
of the child was adjudged not to be the true parent, 



16 



and the real mother was restored lo her own. So 
it is, sir, with the true friends of Oregon: thoy 
cannot consent to a division of the child of tlieir 
love. If England is the trne parent, give it all to 
her, sir. We cannot consent to a division of the 
territory, cither by the Columbia river, or the 
forty-nnith parallel. And here, Mr. President, T 
must be permitted to say, " more in sorrow than 
in anger," I regret, as a friend of the' Executive, 
that he felt himself bound to offer to Great Britain 
the proposition to divide the territory on the forty- 
ninth parallel. 1 think, sir, the error, on his part, 
consisted in this: that he did not consider it a neic 
question, so far as he and his Administration were 
concerned. In my judgment, sir, so far as he was 
concerned, it was an entirely new question. And 
why, sir? Because, at the convention which as- 
sembled in May, 1844, to nominate candidates for 
President and Vice President, to be supported by 
the party to which he belongs, a delegate of the 
State of New York offered the following, among 
other resolutions, which was unanimously adopt- 
ed, as a principle of action and of union. Here it 
is, sir: 

" Resolved, That our title to the whole of the ter- 
* ritory of Oregon is clear and unquestionable; that 
' no portion of the same ought to be ceded to En"-- 
' land or any other Power; and that the re-occupa- 
' tion of Oregon and the re-annexation of Texas, 
' at the earliest practicable period, are great Amer- 
' ican measures, which this convention recommends 
' to the cordial supporfof the Democracy of the 
« Union. "_ 

Now, sir, on these great "American measures," 
then for the first time adopted as such, we went 
before the country. The present Executive was 
the candidate of the party that avowed this right 
and title to the whole of the territory of Oregon. 
Oregon was the watchword throughout the whole 
length and breadth of the land. It was not con- 
fined to the west 'or southwest; but in the north- 
ern, middle, and throughout all the States, it was 
the rallying cry. Oregon and Texas were one and 
undivided. The Executive was elected by the aid 
of this measure; and to what did he pledge himself 
on the eastern portico, before his assembled fellow- 
citizens, in his Inaugural Address to tliem and to 
the country? Mark his language, sir: 

"Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to 
' assert and maintain, by all constitutional means, 
' the right of the United States to that portion of 
' our territory which lies beyond the Rocky moun- 
' tains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is 
''clear and unquestionable;' and already are our 
' people preparing to perfect that title, by occupy- 
' ing it with their wives and children." 

Such, sir, was his explicit and frank declara- 
tion, in accordance with the public judgment of 
the country; such was his pledge. He had been 
elected as friendly to a series of measures, of 
which the entirety of Oregon was one; and thus 
it became, in my opinion, as to him and his Ad- 
ministration, an entirely new question. It never 
had before, Mr. President, been an element in 
any political controversy, and his Inaugural Ad- 
dress prefigured to his constituents what his 
course would be, when called to act upon the 
question. In his Message delivered to Congress at 



the present session, he does not depart from the 
ground he then assumed as to the right, but " in 
' deference alone to what had been done by his pre- 
' decessors, and the implied obligation which their 
' acts seemed to impose," and not considering it a 
new question, he made the proposition. Again, I 
say, sir, I regret the President took that view of 
the subject, and offered a proposition so well cal- 
culated to embarrass his friends in different parts 
of the country, and who had united in condemning 
those predecessors for making a similar offer. But 
the proposition was made and rejected by Great 
Britain, withdrawn by our Government, and is no 
longer binding. The President tells us, with his 
conviction that no compromise which the United 
States ought to accept can be effected, " the pro- 
' position of compromise, which had been made 
' and rejected, was, by ray direction, subseqently 
' withdrawn, and our title to the whole Oregon 
' territory asserted, and, as is believed, maintained 
' by irrefragable facts and arguments." He then 
recommends giving the notice to terminate the 
conventicm, and says: "At the end of the year's 
' notice, should Congress think it proper to make 
' provision for giving that notice, we shall have 
' reached a period when the national rights in 
' Oregon must either be abandoned or firmly main- 
' tained. That they cannot be abandoned with- j 
' out a sacrifice of both national honor and inter- 
' est, is too clear to admit of doubt." Again he 
' says: "Oregon is a part of the North American 
' continent, to which it is confidently affirmed, the 
' title of the United Stales is the best in existence.''' 

To understand, sir, what is meant by our na- 
tional rights in Oregon, which cannot be abandon- 
ed without a sacrifice of both national honor and 
interest, we have only to recur to the passage first 
above quoted. We there find that it is to the 
whole Oregon territory, our title to Vv-hich is main- 
tained "by irrefragable facts and arguments." 
Under these full and patriotic declarations, the 
country can repose, sir, with perfect confidence; 
entertaining no apprehensions that their President 
will swci've from them in thp slightest particular, 
now that the honorary obligation is fully dis- 
charged. 

The recommendations of the President, sir, 
should be carried into effect." I hope they will be 
by the unanimous vote of the Senate. I should 
rejoice to see entire union upon them. In cases of 
this kind there should bono party divisions; party 
should have no existence; it is not now a party 
question. By reference to the vote in the other 
House, it will be seen that party lines were not 
observed, and I hope it may be so here. 

Even, sir, if the very objectionable resolutions 
offered by t)ie Senator from Georgia [Mr. Col- 
quitt] should receive the assent of the Senate, I 
should still feel assured, having so much confidence 
in the wisdom and firmness of the Executive, that 
whatever compromise he might be compelled, un- 
der the terms of it, to offer or accept, it would not 
be such an one as would involve a cession of any 
part of the territory, because, sir, he is fully com- 
mitted to the nation to maintain its right to the 
whole territory, and to preserve unsullied the na- 
tional honor, and he feels the rcsponsibity of that 
position. 



17 



Mr. Prosidcnt, let us Inr^uire what will lie the 
state of thiii2:s after the notice is given, and the 
twelve months have expired. What will follow, 
sir? If British subjects remain in the territory, 
they will, necessarily, become subject to our laws, 
as they arc now in every other part of the United 
States in which they may ha]ipen to be. That, 
sir, will be their condition — that will be the effect 
of the termination of the convention; for we would 
be at once remitted to our right of possession, 
which must necessarily be exclusive, placing us 
in the actual sovereignty of the country. That 
we can maintain that position is very certain. 
There need be no apprehension, sir, if notice be 
given, and the measures recommended by the 
President carried out, and emigration encouraged, 
that any act of violence on the part of Great Brit- 
ain will take place; because, in addition to other 
considerations, we have her unqualified admission, 
that we have the right of possession, and any act 
of encroachment on her part would be entirely un- 
authorized and unjustifiable, and which she would 
not hazard, as it would be an act of war. She 
cannot now gainsay that admission. She cannot 
abridge it, and while it remains, she would have 
no right to interfere with our exclusive possession. 
The question then will be, sir, shall we maintain 
this right, fortified by the admission of Great 
Britain herself, and reposing upon a title so clear 
and unquestionable as ours is shown to be, by 
force of principles which she has herself establish- 
ed, or shall we abandon it? I cannot think of it 
for a moment, sir, as it would be a wilful and 
wicked abandonment "of our own self-respect and 
our national honor." All we have to do, sir, in 
this and every other emergency, is, to pursue the 
path of duty and honor, lead where it may. After 
all we have said and done, sir, it would, in my 
judgment, be highly derogatory to our national 
character to recede a single inch from the position 
we have assumed, fortified as it is by the clear 
right of the case, sanctioned by the common judg- 
ment of the whole country, and taken with delib- 
eration. 

But it is said, sir. Great Britain will not recede — 
she will not yield her pretensions, and war may 
come; and this seems to be the opinion of the 
Senator of Michigan, [Mr. Cass.] I cannot 
undertake to say, Mr. President, what England 
will do when the crisis comes; but this I think I 
can say, that her history shows that in almost 
every case threatening a controversy with us, in 
which she has been firmly met and resolutely 
opposed, she has never persisted. To instance no 
other examples: at the time we acquired Louisiana^ 
did she not object, and protest, and threaten ? She 
v/as then at war with France, and might, by belli- 
gerent capture, have added that rich province to 
her Crown; but we pursued the even tenor of our 
way, keot our object steadily in view, and in spite 
of enemies at home and abroad, consummated the 
act: and what was the result? So in regard to our 
proceedings towards Spain, before the Florida 
treaty. She charged us with a desire for territorial 
aggrandizement; she protested against our right to 
take possession of that part of it we claimed; yet 
we pursued the course policy and justice to our- 
selves dictated — placed at the disposal of the Ex- 



ecutive nienna adequate to the exigency of the 
case, and we heard no more of British interference 
or opposition. So in regard to the surrender of 
this very territory, under the first article of the 
treaty of Ghent. For three years she raised diffi- 
culties, coined objections, and postponed the exe- 
cution of a positive treaty stipulation; but we were 
firm and importunate, and were reinstated in our 
possession. And it is only necessary for us, sir, 
in this case, to be firm, calm, and prudent, demand- 
ing nothing but what is exactly right, and mani- 
festing a disposition to do full justice, and there is 
no danger of a controversy. 

But, sir, if we adopt a timid policy; if we betray 
a weak and vacillating purpose; if we hesitate, — we 
run the hazard of bringing upon us the very calam- 
ity we seek to avoid. Great Britain understands 
this well. She knows our history. She knows 
we are as firm and unyielding as any nation can be 
with the right on our side, and that we have never 
persisted in the assertion or maintenance of wrong. 
All we have to do, then, in this crisis, is, to main- 
tain this firm and decided position ; and my life on 
it, she will not involve her country and this in the 
calamities of war for Oregon. Sir, Great Britain 
is not prepared for a war with us. She never was 
in a more pirecarious condition than she is at this 
moment; not from internal decay, perhaps, sir, but 
from the circumstances of her position, and without 
a friend in any one of the nations of the earth. She 
is, too, at this moment embarking in a bold, and 
to. her dangerous, experiment — no less, sir, than a 
radical change in a policy to which she has ad- 
hered, with such pertinacity, since the revolution 
of 1688. Her sviccess, sir, in this experiment, she 
must know and feel, depends in a very great degree 
upon the maintenance of amicable relations with 
this country. We have been, and now are, her 
best customer, and it is not to be presumed she 
would attempt such a change, with her best cus- 
tomer in arms against her. That would be fatal, 
suicidal. 

The controversy will never be prosecuted to a 
war by Great Britain, under the circumstances in 
which' she is placed, unless we manifest tim.idity 
and indecision; and if it should, sir, I cannot think 
she could do us any very great injury. I have re- 
flected a good deal upon this subject, and I cannct 
for my life, sir, see how she can inflict upon us 
any permanent injury, while she is fcxposed to 
that hazard from us by the very nature of her sys- 
tem. We might lose some merchant ships, and a 
vessel of war or so; but her own commerce would 
be more crippled than-ours. We could carry on a 
war often years with less injury to us than to her. 
Our condition is vastly different now from what it 
was when the war of 1812 was declared. Then 
our population v/as small, our internal commerce 
nothing. Now we have facilities of approach from 
the seaboard into every part of the country, near 
20,000,000 of people,"and an internal commerce 
fifteen times as great as our foreign, which we 
could fall back upon, and verify the' f\ict, that we 
can live and flourish without any foreign com- 
merce. These make our position more favorable 
for a war than that of Great Britain; besides, so 
far as the great staple of her manufactures, cotton, 
is concerned, -she is almost wholly dependent on 



IP 



us. She cannot procure from India and EgyjH 
enough to keep her spindles employed three 
months; and unless she draws her supply from us 
throuo-h neutral ports, she must be broken up. 
Taking this single consideration into the account, 
the prospect of inevitable ruin to her, keeping 
her condition in other respects in view, is alarm- 
ing indeed. This great staple contributes so nuich 
to the support of her population, and is so impor- 
tant an elemoit of her commercial and internal 
jn-osperity, that it will always operate, whOst we 
control its production, as bond and security from 
her that she will keep the peace. It is most man- 
ifestly, sir, her interest not to go to war, and she 
will make great sacrifices to avoid it — every sacri- 
fice short of national honor, which, so far as she 
is concerned, is not involved in this question. 
Seeing, as she does, this territory filling up by our 
own citizens; that it is contiguous territory, and 
the only outlet westward for the great valley of the 
Mississippi to the markets of Asia, and entirely 
detached from all her colonies in either hem- 
isphere, and that it can be to her but a barren pos- 
session, the sacrifice in yielding peaceably her pre- 
tensions to any part of it, accompanied by those 
friendly arrangements to which I have alluded, will 
bear no comparison to that we should encounter 
by an abandonment on our part. 

And, sir, it will not be England alone which 
will be engaged in this war, should one befidl us. 
The people of Europe have the spirit of rev- 
olution and reform raging within them, only sup- 
pressed by the strong arm of power. It is the 
policy of thrones and dynasties to j-irevent a war 
with us. If a war does come it will be a war of 
systems — not for Oregon; and in such a war, so 
sure as the red man fades away before the advance 
of civilization, so sure will those thrones and 
dynasties fall before the advance of republican 
principles. No, sir; Europe will not suffer Eng- 
land to war for Oregon with us. The great free- 
trade interest alone, now promising to" be in the 
ascendant in England, will have power sufiicient to 
prevent a war, and will prevent it at every sacri- 
fice. 

I have not been able to see, sir, how a nation so 
politic as England is, can hazard a ■w\ir, in her 
present condition, provided the matter is managed 
by us, as it should be, (we doing nothing calculated 
to irritate, and manifesting a just and liberal spirit 
towards her,) with becoming firmness. If war does 
grow out of this cpieslion, Mr. President, it must 
be commenced by England— we will not take the 
initiative in that. But, it is said, sir, we must so 
manage the matter by negotiation , compromise, and 
acquiescence, in the demands of Great Britain, as 
not to force her to this alternative; for it is said, sir, 
if war does ensue, we will lose our foreign trade, 
be visited by all its accumulated horrors and cal- 
amities, and that we would be Ijroken down in 
our finances, as the Senator of South Carolina 
[Mr. Calhoun] said a few days since. If these 
are proper considerations, sir, and to be used as 
arguments on such a topic, the duty of maintain- 
ing national rights would be at an end. Such ar- 
guments persuade us to surrender them up quietly 
to any arrogant demand or baseless pretension, If 
made by a formidable Power, lest, by resisting, 



we should be subjected to loss and injury. Such 
reasoning, sir, puts a stop, at once, to the assertion 
and maintenance of any right, no matter how im- 
portant. Much as I detest war, sir, and Mould 
earnestly seek to avoid its consequences could it 
be done honorably; much as I should deprecate an 
increase of the paper system which might ensue, — 
I would greatly prefer them all, to a surrender, 
under existing circumstances, of any portion of the 
Oregon territory. There is nothing that can grow 
out of a war that my State would not be wdling 
to endure, in preference to the surrender of any 
part of it — nothing, whatever, sir. For, so far as 
we are concerned, the point of honor is involved. 
We have been told, sir, time and again, if we do 
assert our title, and take measures to maintain it, 
war will follow; and again and again are we re- 
minded of the magnitude of England's power, and 
of our own unprepared and defenceless condition. 
Sir, I have said I did not believe a war could do 
us much injury — certainly not so much as it would 
England. She has no internal commerce to fall 
back upon to sustain her — no internal resources — 
all is scattered over the face of the earth. With 
us, it is wholly different. We possess all the 
varieties of soil and climate, well adapted to the 
most profuse production of all necessary articles 
of consumption ; a population possessing every 
kind and degree of skill, enterprise, and pursuit; 
with an intei'nal commerce spreading over more 
than three thousand miles of territory — amounting 
annually to many hundred millions of dollars, with 
the most perfect facilities by railroads and canals 
to accommodate it, which would not only sustain, 
but enrich the whole country, and verify the fact, 
as I have before said, that we could live and pros- 
per, independent of all foreign nations. We would 
discover that our prosperity does not depend on 
the accidents of foreign commerce, or on the unruly 
politics of Europe. This commerce between the 
States, sir, is, without its restrictions, like that be- 
tween so many foreign and distinct nations. Com- 
pare our situation in this regard, with those Euro- 
pean States having but little foreign commerce, and 
none internal, estimated by ours; they seem to pros- 
per, sir, under burdens and exactions far heavier 
and greater, even in a time of peace, than ours 
could be in war. Situated as we are now, sir, if 
we have not the ability to sustain a war, it seems 
to me that no nation on the face of the earth ever 
had or ever will have that ability. 

As to "breaking down our finances," sir, and 
the evils of the paper-system, which it is thought 
will necessarily follow a war, this will be but tem- 
porary, and can be greatly modified by wise legis- 
lation. There is nothing, sir, in this view of the 
subject calculated to inspire alarm, or make us hes- 
itate in defending all our rights. We have now, 
sir, in the country about ^00,000,000 of specie, 
which, in the event of war, would remain in the 
country, as there would be no use for it to pay bal- 
ances abroad, there being no foreign trade. This 
would be a basis for safe issues, according to the 
modern science of banking, of three hundred mil- 
lions of dollars. Treasury notes bearing no interest, 
and receivable by the Government for all dues, 
would be at par for all Government payments, and 
being in demand to pay taxes, would not fluctuate 



19 



very much in value in the market. Svich a system 
might be made to work quite safely, sir, during a 
war, but should terminate with it, or before our 
revived commerce created a balance of trade 
against us. As to the taxes, sir, do the people 
not pay now, indirectly, through the operation of 
our tariff laws, more than they would have to pay 
directly by taxation ? If tliey have no taxes to 
pay in the shape of duties, as they would not 
m case of war, they would be better enabled to 
pay those which should be levied by taxation 
to support a war waged in defence of national 
rights and national honor. A war with all the ca- 
lamities attendant upon it, such as they may be, 
would not be barren of benefit. It would unite our 
people more closely than they are now united, 
would increase their energies, and, by calling into 
exercise the sterner virtues, lead, in the end, to a 
vast increase of our power. We are becoming, 
sir, too effeminate, luxurious, and extravagant; 
all these tendencies would be checked by a war: 
" Sweet are the uses of adversitj- ! 
Which, like the tnad, ugly and venomous, 
Wears yet a precious jewel in its head." 
And as for a speedy recovery from the ill effects 
of a war, sir, no nation on the globe possesses half 
the recuperative energy that ours possesses. This 
our history proves. Who believes, sir, that the 
late war was of any injury to us ? Though many 
fell — though much blood was spilt — our foreign 
commerce broken up, and all industrial pursuits 
crippled and damaged, and not one object attained 
for which the war was declared and waged at so 
much expense of blood and treasure, who can 
doubt that it was of immense service to us, weigh- 
ing all these against that one item which it gained 
for us — the respect of all other Powers, and the 
high exaltation of our national character ? And we 
recovered from its effects in a few years, and with 
renewed life aiid vigor have since pursued our 
glorious and successful career. 
The Senator from Delaware, sir, [Mr. J. M. Clay- 
ton,] took occasion, in his remarks upon these res- 
olutions, to contrast our naval force with that of 
Great Britain, and rea,d to the Senate a prepared 
statement of her military and commercial marine. 
But the Senator did not seem to recollect that the 
number of vessels of war possessed by a nation is 
no criterion by which to estimate its power. Eng- 
land has many ships of war, sir — she has the 
wooden walls, but has she the sinew and muscle 
with which to man them? Can she get the men.' 
I recollect reading last summer, sir, in a British 
magazine, an article upon the defences of Great 
Britain, and, among other things, the condition of 
her nav}'^, both as to the materiel and the personnel, 
in which it was stated that Captain Lushington, 
one of the most popular officers in her navy, had 
great difficulty, and had been unable up to that 
time, to ship a crew for the steamer "Retribution." 
Now, sir, with this fact in view, I would ask tliat 
Senator, how it is in the power of Great Britain to 
man one half of the vessels on that formidable list 
he presented to the Senate, even by resorting — as 
she certainly would resort — to the press-gang.' She 
cannot man them, sir. The Sena'tor showed, sir, 
by his statement, that in proportion to our com- 
merce, as compared witii that of England and some 



of the minor Powers of Europe, we had fewer 
guns for its protection than any of them: but the 
Senator did not seem to consider the capacity of 
this nation to arm itself on an emergency, and he 
left the inference very foir that he believed ours 
was the weakest naval power on the globe. I 
think, sir, a little consideration of, and examina- 
tion into, elements of naval power will serve to sat- 
isfy every Senator that we have the capacity to put 
afloat, in a very short time, a more powerful navy 
than Great Britain ever possessed. It cannot be 
denied, sir, that we are capable of constructing ves- 
sels with more rapidity, and with better equipment 
and sailing qualities, than any other nation; andif 
war comes, instead of finding us unprepared in 
this arm of annoyance and defence, we should be 
found, in a few months, the best prepared nation in 
the world. It is true, sir, of national vessels, we have 
but seventy -six, all told, but we have a commercial 
marine unsurpassed by any. All our packet ships, 
sailing from the ports of New York and Philadel- 
phia, are larger, better fitted, stauncher, better sail- 
ers, and capable of carrying more guns and sustain- 
ing their recoil, and resisting an enemy's broadside, 
than our second-class frigates were in the last war, 
or could soon be made so by additional bulwarks, 
the work of a few weeks. These, with our whale 
ships armed and fitted, to say nothing; of our steam- 
boats with armaments on board, will enable us to 
put afloat a more efficient navy than Great Britain 
ever possessed; and for shipping crews, patriotism 
would supply the place of the press-gang. 

If you will look, sir, at the list of the British 
navy, you will find that many ships named in it 
are not seaworthy, and cannot be made so; many 
of them are old .ships, ships engaged in the battles 
of Trafalgar and the Nile ; they'are now old hulks, 
unfit for service. 

Mr. J. M. Clayton desired to correct the 
honorable Senator in one or two particulars. He 
did not say that we were the weakest nation, nor 
had he endeavored to place the strength of Great 
Britain in a striking light before the Senate. He 
had merely stated the relative naval power of this 
country and England, in reply to the remarks of 
the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Allen.] He had 
said nothing to disparage our own naval force, but 
he had thought it proper to correct some state- 
ments of the gentleman from Ohio in regard to the 
naval power "of England. And he had done so 
from facts then in his possession. Since he had 
made that statement, he had seen a still later au- 
thority, disclosing more particular information as 
to the naval power of Great Britain than he had 
been in po.^session of at the time he had the honor 
to address the Senate. He stated at that time that 
England had 671 ships, carrying an armament of 
16,272 guns. By the latest official documents re- 
ceived by the last steamer, I perceive, so much has 
she increased her naval power within the last quar- 
ter, that she has now 17,772 guns in her navy. 
This is a great increase, and this has been effected 
in the last" quarter of the last year. The number 
of her war-steamers, according to the account we 
were in possession of when he last addressed the 
Senate, was 93. He perceived by the documents 
lately received that there were nov/ 121. He had 
also 'stated that her military marine amounted to 



20 



40,000, and he did say, too, in reference to the 
commercial marine, to which the Senator from Il- 
linois had now alluded, that ours was about equal, 
or perhaps a little inferior to that of England. But 
the recent information showed that that estimate 
was somewhat erroneous, or at least that their 
commercial marine had increased since the former 
statement. 

The tonnage, foreign and coastwise, of the Uni- 
ted Kingdom of Great Britain, at tlie close of the 
year 18.38, was 2,420,759 tons. The same state- 
ment is made by McCulloch, title "British Em- 
pire," and by Baron Charles Dupin, in his " Pa- 
rallele des Trois Principales Marines de I'Univers.'" 

A rare work, very recently published, and re- 
ceived within a few daj's past at the Treasury, 
(McGregor's Commercial Tarifls,&c.,) referred to 
and relied upoain the Secretary's report this day, 
brings down the information on the subject as late 
as the .31st December, 1844, at whichtime it ap- 
pears tJiat the whole tonnage, foi-eign and coast- 
wise, of the United Kingdom, was 2,994,166 tons; 
which, added to that of Guernsey, Jersey, and 
Man, (50,226 tons,) makes the whole tonnage of 
all, by the latest returns received within the last 
week at the Treasury, 3,044,392 tons. 

The Secretary's report states the tonnage of the 
United States, on the 30th June, 1845, at 2,416,999 
tons. This was the amount stated by Mr. C. in 
his speech of the 12th ultimo, on the Oregon ques- 
tion. He then estimated the tonnag-e of the Uni- 
ited Kingdom, &c., at 2,420,759 tons, which was 
according to the latest returns to be relied on at 
the time. 

By the latest "List of the British Navy," it 
jtppears that there has been a very extraordinary 
increase of the naval power of Eno-land within the 
last quarter of the year 1845. He (Mr. C.) stated, 
in the debate on the 12th ultimo, from the best 
information to be then had, the whole number of 
guns in the British navy at 16,242. That state- 
ment was founded on the then latest returns of the 
British navy. The oiHcial list received by tlie last 
steamer now shows the number of s:\xm to be 
17,772, exclusive of the armament of the sailing 
packets. It is certain that the British navy has 
greatly increased of late. Mr. C. stated, on the 
same occasion, the number of English war steam- 
ers, by the only official li.st then to be consulted 
on this side of the water, at 98. The late intelli- 
gence shows that this number has been increased 
v/ithin the last quarter to 121. Mr. C. observed, 
in his speech of the 12th ultimo, in re])Iy to Mr. 
Ai.LEN, that he had carefully avoided ovcrratin<r 
the British power. His estimates were correctly 
predicated on the very licst information to l)e had 
at the tmie he spoke, and he had rather undei rated 
the British and slightly overrated our own naval 
power. He stated the number of guns in our navy 
at 2,352; the number is, I now learn, precisely 
2,329. The important result of this interesting in- 
quiry into the relative naval and commercial power 
of the two countries is almost, precisely the same 
as stated by Mr. C. Great Britain appear.s, by 
the Secretary's report, to liave about 600 guns for 
every 100,000 tons of commerce; we have only 96; 
while France lias 1,046; Holland 683; Sweden and 
Norway 394; Turkey 1,223; Denmark 703; Portu- 



gal 798; Austria 321; and Russia far more than 
any other nation, in proportion to the amount of 
her commerce to be protected. We are behind all 
other civilized nations in this respect. We have 
less protection for the same amount of commercial 
wealth than any other people, and we must double 
our navy before we can stand on a respectable 
peace establishment, if we are to measure our own 
by the standard which regulates the other navies 
of the world. 

Mr. Breese. The Senator's statement confirms 
what I said, sir; for it does represent his own coun- 
try as the weakest naval Power on earth; it shows 
that even the minor Powers of Europe have more 
guns in proportion to their commerce than we have. 
And it confirms another statement I made, sir: that 
Great Britain cannot man her guns. She has, sir, 
it seems by the Senator's showing, 17,722 guns in 
her navy; and as ten men are required to each gun, 
she should have 177,220 men; whereas the fact is 
she has Ijut 40,000. 

But, sir, this inequality is not the point. The 
question is as to the capacity of this nation to arm 
for a contest; and, in this particular, that of Great 
Britain, vast as it may be, is still inferior to ours. 
She does not possess the elements of preparation 
and combination we do, and in these respects we 
are the strongest naval power on the globe. Look 
at one fact, sir, in proof of what individual enter- 
prise can do, in building steam -vessels. In 1834, 
when the whole steamboat tonnage of the British 
empire did not exceed 82,000 tons, that in the Mis- 
sissippi valley alone amounted, two years ago, to 
125,O0O tons, or one-third more than that of the 
whole British empire. Compare the capacity of 
Great Britain with that of the United States to pre- 
pare a military marine. Sir, there is no compari- 
son. We have forests, which she does not pos- 
sess — we have all the malerlel, the personnel, and 
the skill. Our skill in naval construction is un- 
equalled. She has never possessed such ships as 
our line packets; she has never yet approached us 
in the construction of steam-vessels, in beauty, 
swiftness, and capability. We have constructed 
them to run tv.-enty-seven miles in the hour — a 
speed never yet attained by any British steamers, 
and never will be, unless our models are adopted. 
In every particular — I have not the ability now to 
go into the details — in every particular, we have 
immense advantages over her, in the possession of 
the elements of defence and assault, which can soon 
be worked up into effective means. Our capacity, 
sir, to put the country in a state of naval defence 
is decidedly greater than hers. 

But, sir, as signs of approaching war, the great 
military and naval preparations in which Great 
Britain is engaged, and of which we have heard 
so much, are referred to: and to vv^hat do they all 
amount? I have said, sir, I did not believe Great 
Britain would go to war for Oregon, and I consider 
these preparations no indication of such a purpose. 
She makes periodically a survey of her marine, 
examines and repairs her dock-yards, cuts down 
large vessels into razees; and it is apart of her sys- 
tem. She has been, and is now, busily engaged 
in fortifying the more exposed points of her coa.st, 
but the reason of that was well known. All this 
activity, to which the attention of Senators and the 



21 



by her proximity, a most dangerous ncii^liboi'- 
When it IS considered, sir, that she lias, in addition 
to her force of 80,000 men in Algiers, a standing 
army, well disciplined and equipped, of 350,000, 
with magazines and arsenals filled to repletion, 
and all munitions of war on hand, besides near- 
ly a million of militia, and a well-drilled nation- 
al guard in all her provincial cities and towns, 
it is very easy to believe, in the present state of 
improvement in the means of warfare and approach, 
Great Britain would be alarmed: hence her past 
and present activity. Her insular position, sir, is 
no longer her sure protection. Her popular na- 
tional air — 

<• Britannia needs no bulwarks, 

Ko towers alon? the steep; 

Her niarcli is o'er the mountain wave, 

Her home is on tlie deep," 

is now no longer true, sir. She does need those 
"bulwarks," and at a vast expense she is build- 
ing " towers along the steep;" and they all had 
reference— not to us, sir, but to her dangerous 
neighbor and hereditary foe. She has to oppose 
to this tremendous power of France, a standing 
army of 130,000 men, 80,000 of whom are scatter- 
ed abroad over the world, 22,000 are in Ireland to 
keep down the commotions of a people waiting 
their " opportunity," when England's '< necessity" 
shall have arrived; and the remainder, most of 
them raw recruits, are scattered over England and 
Scotland. Well might she be alarmed, sir, at the 
prospect before her. 

The Senator from Delaware, sir, [Mr. .T. _M. 
Clayton,] when exhibiting to the Senate the im- 
mense naval power of Great Britain, forgot to say, 
or at least he did not say, that much of it had to 
be spread, for the protection of her colonies, over 
the globe; and without leaving these colonies and 
posts exposed to the attack of a hostile force — and 
they are the most inviting points of attack — she 
could not concentrate a fleet upon our coast that 
need give us the slightest alarm. With the aid of 
our vast and unexcelled commercial marine, such 
national ships and steamers as we could soon sup- 
ply, instead of being blockaded, as we have been 
told, we could blockade our enemy: I have no 
sort of doubt about it. So far as naval superiority 
is concerned, and to be tested, let the energies of 
this nation and this people be roused, and all doubts 
on that subject would soon be put to flight. It is 
not our policy to keep up, in time of peace, and 
no war-cloud"impending, a cumbrous and expen- 
sive naval force— it will not, I trust, ever be our 
policy. I am, sir, among the warmest and best 
friends to the navy; and because I am so, I shall 
oppose its increase, in time of peace, to any great 
extent, lest that should break it down. It is sufli- 
cient for us, sir, that we have the capacity, when- 
ever an emergency shall arise, to make it more 
formidable than that of any other power on the 
face of the globe, let that arrive to-day, or at 
any time. I am confident, sir, should the emer- 
o-ency occur to-morrow, the energy, the alacrity, 
the means and capacity of the country to meet 
it would be so displayed as to astonisli our- 
s, , selves. Should a war come, sir, in the prosecu- 



country has been directed, commenced before the 
Oregon question had assumed its present important 
and interesting aspect; at least liefore it had become 
such a prominent question between the two Gov- 
ernments as it now is. Before the President's In- 
augural was delivered, sir, the British Premier, on 
the 14th of February, 1845, in presenting the an 
nual estimate of expenses, declared he should ask 
a vote to increase the navy; and the reason he as- 
signed was, that Great Britain had then three ad- 
ditional naval stations to maintain: one on the coast 
of Africa, one in China, and one in the Pacific; and 
that they would require an increase in the naval 
force of four thousand men, and for the navy and 
ordnance an additional sum of =£1,000,000. He also 
proposed an increase of the steam navy, and, as 
he declared, not for any purposes of a war of ag- 
gression, but in consequence of the extension of 
Uieir commerce in all parts. He said, " We do 
not propose this increase from any apprehension of 
war, [hear, hear,] or with any view whatever to 
aggression." [Loud cries of hear.] 

All this was before Oregon had become a prom- 
inent topic, and may be traced to the pamphlet 
"On the State of the "]S"aval Force of France," put 
forth in May precedins:, by the Admiral Prince de 
Joinville, and the publication of Thiers, going to 
show that a descent by Napoleon upon the Eng- 
lish coast was seriously contemplated from Bou- 
logne, and would have been carried into effect but 
for accidental causes. This pamphlet pointed out 
the weakness of the defences of the British coast 
opposite France, and insisted, in case of a war, an 
army from France might easily make a sudden de- 
scent upon England, and this through the agency 
of steam. Steam, sir, has placed those great Pow- 
ers on more equal ground. Brest, capable of con- 
taining fifty war steamers of the first class, is 
only one hundred miles — a few hours run — from 
the coast of Cornwall. Dieppe, Boulogne, Ca- 
lais, and Dunkirk, though smaller ports, are from 
sixty to twenty-four miles only from the shores 
of Sussex, Ivcnt, and Essex. With that immense 
control of men which France possesses, and with 
war steamers, what is to prevent her from repay- 
ing the visit England made to her capital thirty 
j'ears ago, or of ravaging her coasts, unless ade- 
Quate fo'i-tifications, either fixed or floating, and a 
s'ufii'.icnt military force, be raised to prevent a land- 
ing? The Duke of Wellington himself, in his evi- 
dence before the Committee on Shipwrecks, raised 
by the House of Commons, says: " In the event 
' of a war, I should consider that the want of pro- 
' tection and of refuge, which now exist, would 
' leave the coasts of England opposite to those of 
'France in a very precarious situation." These 
forts now erecting might protect the points where 
they shall be built; but they do not insure the safe- 
ty of England, because the power, certainty, and 
celerity of steam, enables France to choose her 
own point of debarkation and attack. Wind and 
tide are not to be waited on. Steam has revo- 
lutionized the science of naval warfare, rendering 
comparatively ineffective the immense sail-navy of 
England for defence; at the same time increasing 
the^ effectiveness of a small steam-navy at least 



of past times for the present, and makes France, 



22 



would not be, as in the last war, " a peace party," 
aiding the enemy, preventing capitalists from loan- 
ing money to the Government to carry it on, and 
rejoicing over our defeats. There would be no 
domestic traitors. We should all be Americans in 
deed; and heart and hand, in cordial union, rally 
as one man around our country's standard. A 
war, sir, will not proceed from us. It must come 



from the other quarter; and if it docs come, it will 
be a war of aggression, unsustained by the sense 
of justice, or the sympathies of other nations. We 
never will, we cannot become an aggressive Power; 
but when an assault is made upon us, sir, the 
whole land will rise as the mighty man armed, 
and with a vigorous and united effort, overwhelm 
the aggressor. Sir, I have done. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



017 185 142 7 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



017 185 142 7 ^ 



Conservation Resources 
Lig-Free® Type I 
Ph 8.5. Buffered 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

I II l! I 



017 185 142 7 



Conservation Resources 
LIg-Free® Type I 
Pb 8.5, Buffered 



